Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Capital Magpie]

But if there is no proof for or against the existance of God making God essentially unknowable, why do you believe what other humans have said about the nature of 'God'?

Initially, it's because what I was taught in Sunday School, but as I grew up I used my intellect to learn about Christianity and Jesus'teachings, and to see if they made sense to me. They did by and large, although I will admit I don't blindly adhere to all that the Church teaches.

In another post you claimed that we were made in God's image. Where did you get this from and why do you think the persons that originally made this claim knew the nature or image God, when you yourself have stated there is essentially no way of knowing?

I got it from Scripture. When Jesus was questioned about the nature of God, He answered that man (humanity) was made in God's image. I consider that Scripture and the Bible are written accounts from people of faith in the past, who either were present when Jesus made these pronouncements, or the account was passed down to them by others who were there. That is my faith I guess.

 

[Capital Magpie]

Not all of them but many of them do. Look at the Muslims in this thread deny evolution even Vdubs have put an argument against evolution. And secondly i am not an atheist, as Sagan said (when asked if he believes in god), it depends on your definition of God. I do find the mainstram christian definition as a loving caring god to be ridiculous.

I understand that an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God. The word is derived from anti-theist I think. You say you're not an atheist, so does that mean you believe in the existence of a God, just not the Christian version?

 

[Total Power]

I understand that an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God. The word is derived from anti-theist I think. You say you're not an atheist, so does that mean you believe in the existence of a God, just not the Christian version?

Uh no. I am not 'anything' really. The closest i come is probably Gnosticism, however not the traditional kind. I acknolwedge the existence of consciousness, you cannot get behind consciousness, you cannot define it, nor understand it, not explain it, only experience it. Beyond that i simply don't know, if you read the ancient texts (predates christianity), almost all religions are atheistic. (by atheistic i mean denial of existence of a deity).

 

[Roylion]

Initially, it's because what I was taught in Sunday School, but as I grew up I used my intellect to learn about Christianity and Jesus'teachings, and to see if they made sense to me. They did by and large, although I will admit I don't blindly adhere to all that the Church teaches.

But if God is unknowable how does Christianity and the teachings of Jesus (many of which are not particularly original either) have any more validity than any other belief system?

I got it from Scripture. When Jesus was questioned about the nature of God, He answered that man (humanity) was made in God's image.

But Scripture is man-made. If God is unknowable how do the writers of Scripture know the nature of God. How do they know that an unknowable God can even have a son. Any claims to the divinity of jesus are just claims by man, as they too have no knpwledge of God, who is unknowable.

I consider that Scripture and the Bible are written accounts from people of faith in the past,

But who had no way of knowing God, so their written pronouncements are no more valid than anyone elses.

who either were present when Jesus made these pronouncements, or the account was passed down to them by others who were there.

How do they know that Jesus was the 'Son of God'? Because he told them so? Many figures in history have claimed divine status or divine ancestry. They have no way of knowing God either.

 

[Capital Magpie]

Uh no. I am not 'anything' really. The closest i come is probably Gnosticism, however not the traditional kind. I acknolwedge the existence of consciousness, you cannot get behind consciousness, you cannot define it, nor understand it, not explain it, only experience it. Beyond that i simply don't know, if you read the ancient texts (predates christianity), almost all religions are atheistic. (by atheistic i mean denial of existence of a deity).

So, while an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine, you acknowledge that there is some sort of Supreme Consciousness? But like Agnostics, you assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and if divine beings exist? Interesting.

I don't know about the bolded. Only a few religions that I'm aware of deny the existence of God, eg Buddhism. But I wouldn't say almost all religions hold that. Certainly not Christianity; in which adherents believe there is only one true God.

 

[Capital Magpie]

But if God is unknowable how does Christianity and the teachings of Jesus (many of which are not particularly original either) have any more validity than any other belief system?

Comes down to faith in the hearer. Faith is powerful, but it can't be built on empirical evidence.

But Scripture is man-made. If God is unknowable how do the writers of Scripture know the nature of God. How do they know that an unknowable God can even have a son. Any claims to the divinity of jesus are just claims by man, as they too have no knpwledge of God, who is unknowable.

Because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. At least, that's what I believe. The Spirit revealed these truths to them. Jesus Himself said that he was divine, the Son of God, and He was believed, in part because of the miracles He worked.

But who had no way of knowing God, so their written pronouncements are no more valid than anyone elses.



How do they know that Jesus was the 'Son of God'? Because he told them so? Many figures in history have claimed divine status or divine ancestry. They have no way of knowing God either.
See my answer above.

 

[iBeng]

Question for a Christian!

How do you feel about humans mass genocide of entire species, how do you do your best to stop the destruction of Gods creations and what do you think will be our punishment for letting this happen?

 

[Roylion]

Comes down to faith in the hearer. Faith is powerful, but it can't be built on empirical evidence.

Anythng can be made up on the basis of faith in that case. On one hand God is unknowable but there are still claims made about 'God's' nature that can't be anything but the product of man's imagination.

Because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. At least, that's what I believe. The Spirit revealed these truths to them.

But the Holy Spirit is unknowable as well,

Jesus Himself said that he was divine, the Son of God, and He was believed, in part because of the miracles He worked.

As I said, many have claimed diivnity or divine ancestry.

The 'miracles' are doubtful. American writer Robert Ingersoll wrote, "Not 20 people were convinced by the reported miracles of Christ...."

A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many thinkers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) and therefore impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). For example the 'resurrection' of Lazarus could easily be physically explained.

David Hume suggested "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish."

If you believe that Jesus wrought miracles why not Joseph Smith? The gospels record three sorts of 'miracles' supposedly performed by Jesus: exorcisms, cures, and nature wonders.

According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.

• Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio.This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.
• Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed in October 1835.
• Smith related another experience, occurring in December 1835, in which he said the Lord gave him the power to immediately heal Angeline Works when she lay dying, so sick that she could not recognize her friends and family.
• In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all. Among those healed were Woodruff himself, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. Woodruff also tells of how, just after these events occurred, a ferryman who was not a follower of Smith but who had heard of the miracles asked Smith to heal his children, who had come down with the same disease. Smith said that he did not have time to go to the ferryman's house, but he charged Woodruff to go and heal them. Woodruff reports that he went and did as Smith had told him to do and that the children were healed.
• Smith related an experience in which, on July 23, 1839, he charged his brother Don Carlos and his cousin George A. Smith to go and heal about sixty people who were bedridden due to illness. According to his account, all of these people recovered.
• J. Shamp and Margaret Shamp attested to a miracle they saw performed at the behest of Smith by writing the following:

[Dated 19 May 1841] Be it known that on or about the first of December last, we, J. Shamp and Margaret Shamp, of the town of Batavia, Gennesee county, N.Y., had a daughter that had been deaf and dumb four and a half years, and was restored to her hearing, the time aforesaid, by the laying on of the hands of the Elders (Nathan R. Knight and Charles Thompson) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons, [Signed] J. SHAMP, M. SHAMP.

• After apostatizing and denying that Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse avers that this was not a fake healing.

On a number of other occasions, Smith is credited with the casting out or warding off of evil spirits and demonic presences. One account attests that, upon visiting the house of Joseph Knight of Colesville, New York in April 1830, Smith cast Satan out of Knight's son Newel.

 

[Cooldude]

Faith is a synonym for delusion

 

[Vdubs]

Anythng can be made up on the basis of faith in that case. On one hand God is unknowable but there are still claims made about 'God's' nature that can't be anything but the product of man's imagination.



But the Holy Spirit is unknowable as well,



As I said, many have claimed diivnity or divine ancestry.

The 'miracles' are doubtful. American writer Robert Ingersoll wrote, "Not 20 people were convinced by the reported miracles of Christ...."

A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many thinkers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) and therefore impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). For example the 'resurrection' of Lazarus could easily be physically explained.

David Hume suggested "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish."

If you believe that Jesus wrought miracles why not Joseph Smith? The gospels record three sorts of 'miracles' supposedly performed by Jesus: exorcisms, cures, and nature wonders.

According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.

• Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio.This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.
• Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed in October 1835.
• Smith related another experience, occurring in December 1835, in which he said the Lord gave him the power to immediately heal Angeline Works when she lay dying, so sick that she could not recognize her friends and family.
• In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all. Among those healed were Woodruff himself, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. Woodruff also tells of how, just after these events occurred, a ferryman who was not a follower of Smith but who had heard of the miracles asked Smith to heal his children, who had come down with the same disease. Smith said that he did not have time to go to the ferryman's house, but he charged Woodruff to go and heal them. Woodruff reports that he went and did as Smith had told him to do and that the children were healed.
• Smith related an experience in which, on July 23, 1839, he charged his brother Don Carlos and his cousin George A. Smith to go and heal about sixty people who were bedridden due to illness. According to his account, all of these people recovered.
• J. Shamp and Margaret Shamp attested to a miracle they saw performed at the behest of Smith by writing the following:

[Dated 19 May 1841] Be it known that on or about the first of December last, we, J. Shamp and Margaret Shamp, of the town of Batavia, Gennesee county, N.Y., had a daughter that had been deaf and dumb four and a half years, and was restored to her hearing, the time aforesaid, by the laying on of the hands of the Elders (Nathan R. Knight and Charles Thompson) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons, [Signed] J. SHAMP, M. SHAMP.

• After apostatizing and denying that Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse avers that this was not a fake healing.

On a number of other occasions, Smith is credited with the casting out or warding off of evil spirits and demonic presences. One account attests that, upon visiting the house of Joseph Knight of Colesville, New York in April 1830, Smith cast Satan out of Knight's son Newel.

View attachment 889934

You have posted material like this before; why not start an "Ask A Mormon" thread?

 

[Vdubs]

Faith is a synonym for delusion

Christians having faith is at worst, harmless to society, and at best, very pleasing to God

 

[Capital Magpie]

Faith is a synonym for delusion

that's your opinion. I don't agree. Someone once said "Faith can move mountains".

 

[Roylion]

You have posted material like this before; why not start an "Ask A Mormon" thread?

Aren't Mormons Christians?

 

[Evolved1]

Christians having faith is at worst, harmless to society, and at best, very pleasing to God

Your faith in creationist pseudoscience has the potential to be very harmful to society, especially since you claim expertise due to your tertiary science education. Creationism has been used as a political tool elsewhere in the world.

 

[Evolved1]

Aren't Mormons Christians?

Not the true kind, Roy.

 

[Evolved1]

that's your opinion. I don't agree. Someone once said "Faith can move mountains".

Faith is dangerous because it is subjective and has no boundaries. If something can be believed when it contradicts objective evidence, anything can be believed.

People have murdered their children because they heard from biblegod and believed. People claim evolution is not science because they've heard from biblegod. and believed.

I see faith as wilful denial of the truth. It's intellectual dishonesty as a life philosophy.

 

[Vdubs]

Christianity giving the thumbs up to alcohol wouldn't have hurt either. "Water into wine " Alleluia..

And prayer, moderation, self-control, fasting....

 

[Vdubs]

Your faith in creationist pseudoscience has the potential to be very harmful to society, especially since you claim expertise due to your tertiary science education. Creationism has been used as a political tool elsewhere in the world.

I believe that God always was, always will be, and created everything.
Science is man-made, and can never explain God.
I claim no expertise at all for having studied at Uni, but was agreeing to the point made that DESPITE some knowledge of evolution and science, many science graduates have a strong faith in God the creator.
You are better than having to manipulate my words.

 

[Vdubs]

Aren't Mormons Christians?

Mormons are Mormons.
You may be able to enlighten us with your vast research on the topic in a new thread.

 

[Total Power]

So, while an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine, you acknowledge that there is some sort of Supreme Consciousness? But like Agnostics, you assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and if divine beings exist? Interesting.

I don't know about the bolded. Only a few religions that I'm aware of deny the existence of God, eg Buddhism. But I wouldn't say almost all religions hold that. Certainly not Christianity; in which adherents believe there is only one true God.

Consciousness is not 'supreme', it just 'is'. I cannot explain this to you as all our experience stems from that source. It is not god, it's all that there is, Jung described as 'universal consciousness'. Yet words can't explain it as consciousness has no properties/qualities. We always try to define something in material terms cause that's all we know. It's useless, you are doing the same, trying to attribute properites to something that is without a property, this is where mainstream religions fail, trying to "know" what cannot be "known".

A few religions? 2 of the biggest, Hinduism AND buddhism are both atheistic religions. Hinduism is one of the oldest, predates Christianity and Judaism by 1000s of years. There is no god in it. Other smaller religions were more pantheistic in nature and very few had personal god in it. The concept of personal god came with the OT. It didn't exist before.

 

[Roylion]

Mormons are Mormons.

Are they? Aren't they The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? They even have "Jesus Christ" in the title of their church. They seem to be Christians tome

You may be able to enlighten us with your vast research on the topic in a new thread.

I like this one. Are you sure they're not Christians?

 

[Capital Magpie]

Anythng can be made up on the basis of faith in that case. On one hand God is unknowable but there are still claims made about 'God's' nature that can't be anything but the product of man's imagination.



But the Holy Spirit is unknowable as well,

The Holy Spirit is God (because of the 3 persons in 1 concept of Divinity), so no surprise that He is unknowable as well.

As I said, many have claimed diivnity or divine ancestry.

The 'miracles' are doubtful. American writer Robert Ingersoll wrote, "Not 20 people were convinced by the reported miracles of Christ...."

A true miracle would, by definition, be a non-natural phenomenon, leading many thinkers to dismiss them as physically impossible (that is, requiring violation of established laws of physics within their domain of validity) and therefore impossible to confirm by their nature (because all possible physical mechanisms can never be ruled out). For example the 'resurrection' of Lazarus could easily be physically explained.

David Hume suggested "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact which it endeavours to establish."

So what? That's just one person's opinion.

If you believe that Jesus wrought miracles why not Joseph Smith? The gospels record three sorts of 'miracles' supposedly performed by Jesus: exorcisms, cures, and nature wonders.

According to a number of eye-witness accounts, Joseph Smith is credited with the miraculous healings of a large number of individuals.

• Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio.This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.
• Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed in October 1835.
• Smith related another experience, occurring in December 1835, in which he said the Lord gave him the power to immediately heal Angeline Works when she lay dying, so sick that she could not recognize her friends and family.
• In his personal journal, Wilford Woodruff recorded an event that occurred on July 22, 1839 in which he described Smith walking among a large number of Saints who had taken ill, immediately healing them all. Among those healed were Woodruff himself, Brigham Young, Elijah Fordham, and Joseph B. Noble. Woodruff also tells of how, just after these events occurred, a ferryman who was not a follower of Smith but who had heard of the miracles asked Smith to heal his children, who had come down with the same disease. Smith said that he did not have time to go to the ferryman's house, but he charged Woodruff to go and heal them. Woodruff reports that he went and did as Smith had told him to do and that the children were healed.
• Smith related an experience in which, on July 23, 1839, he charged his brother Don Carlos and his cousin George A. Smith to go and heal about sixty people who were bedridden due to illness. According to his account, all of these people recovered.
• J. Shamp and Margaret Shamp attested to a miracle they saw performed at the behest of Smith by writing the following:

[Dated 19 May 1841] Be it known that on or about the first of December last, we, J. Shamp and Margaret Shamp, of the town of Batavia, Gennesee county, N.Y., had a daughter that had been deaf and dumb four and a half years, and was restored to her hearing, the time aforesaid, by the laying on of the hands of the Elders (Nathan R. Knight and Charles Thompson) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called Mormons, [Signed] J. SHAMP, M. SHAMP.

• After apostatizing and denying that Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse avers that this was not a fake healing.

On a number of other occasions, Smith is credited with the casting out or warding off of evil spirits and demonic presences. One account attests that, upon visiting the house of Joseph Knight of Colesville, New York in April 1830, Smith cast Satan out of Knight's son Newel.

View attachment 889934

You've put a lot of work into that lengthy post evidently, and no doubt done a lot of research to support it.

I haven't got the time or the resources or the inclination right now to do it justice by responding in kind.

I will make in response a couple of points -

^ John Smith was a human who pretended to have supernatural powers and portrayed himself as God-like, in order to convince his gullible followers. His so-called miracles don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny

^ How does US author Ingersoll get to assert that "Not 20 people were convinced by the reported miracles of Christ...."? He obviously wasn't there, so is he relying on a scrutiny of the Biblical accounts? If so, don't you non-believers think that the Bible is all made up, so where does that leave him? Is Ingersoll an atheist? If so, he's got some skin in the game, so why should he be held up as some sort of authority?

^ Many may have claimed divinity or divine ancestry, but only Jesus was able to back up his claims by miraculous acts. Lots of them. That's because He was and is the Son of God, so He was and is God by definition.

^ "For example the 'resurrection' of Lazarus could easily be physically explained". I'd like to hear your explanation about how this could be done so easily! It's reported that Lazarus had been in the tomb for 3 days, when they rolled the stone away from his tomb the stench was apparently tremendous. Jesus deliberately delayed his departure to visit Lazarus on his death bed, because He wanted to demonstrate unequivocally the power of God. Raising someone from the dead is no mean feat, as opposed to say helping Lazarus to recover. from an illness Raising Lazarus was such a powerful sign of Jesus' divinity that it prompted 1000s of Jews to want to proclaim Jesus the Messiah barely a week later (Pam Sunday). There were certainly more than 20 when Jesus rode through Bethlehem ti cheering crowds on Palm Sunday, Mr Ingersoll.

^ You cagtegorise Jesus' reported miracles as exorcism, cures and nature wonders, and I think seek to diminish them in that way. But you ignore the greatest wonder of God in that He raised His own son from the dead, after 3 days in the tomb. The Jewish leaders were so outraged when it happened that they concocted a story that Jesus' followers had taken His body away, despite it being under heavy guard 24/7 because that was just what they feared. How could that have happened?

 

[Vdubs]

Are they? Aren't they The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? They even have "Jesus Christ" in the title of their church. They seem to be Christians tome



I like this one. Are you sure they're not Christians?

The thread is about Ask a Christian, not Ask a Mormon.
I have no insights that would enhance your encyclopaedic knowledge.

 

[Evolved1]

I believe that God always was, always will be, and created everything.
Science is man-made, and can never explain God.
I claim no expertise at all for having studied at Uni, but was agreeing to the point made that DESPITE some knowledge of evolution and science, many science graduates have a strong faith in God the creator.
You are better than having to manipulate my words.

I apologise if I inadvertently misrepresented your position. That wasn't my intention.

My understanding is that you don't accept the theory of evolution as valid, or differentiate it into macro and micro evolution which is a tactic used by creationists to hold onto a literal interpretation of genesis.

I accept that science graduates can have faith in the Christian god. No argument there. Having expertise in one field of science doesn't usually translate across to a different field, so a physicist probably doesn't have a strong understanding of the theory of evolution. For Christians who have knowledge about the theory of evolution, I would be surprised if many accept a literal interpretation of the book of genesis.

Where your faith and science clash, I'd assume the best response would be to delve deeper and make adjustments to your faith where necessary rather than dig your heels in on a losing position. JMO.

 

[Capital Magpie]

Consciousness is not 'supreme', it just 'is'. I cannot explain this to you as all our experience stems from that source. It is not god, it's all that there is, Jung described as 'universal consciousness'. Yet words can't explain it as consciousness has no properties/qualities. We always try to define something in material terms cause that's all we know. It's useless, you are doing the same, trying to attribute properites to something that is without a property, this is where mainstream religions fail, trying to "know" what cannot be "known".

A few religions? 2 of the biggest, Hinduism AND buddhism are both atheistic religions. Hinduism is one of the oldest, predates Christianity and Judaism by 1000s of years. There is no god in it. Other smaller religions were more pantheistic in nature and very few had personal god in it. The concept of personal god came with the OT. It didn't exist before.

So Christianity stands out from the crowd of other religions. Perhaps that's an argument of why it's on the right track. If it was just another religion I'd accept that there is nothing special about Christianity.