Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So why was the revelation of the almighty, all-knowing God released then, of all times? In Israel in 4BC, (as the song goes) there was no mass communication.
You are one of the most competent debaters in these threads but you post so infrequently it is hard to maintain a discussion to resolution with you. I however think you have misfired quite a bit here. I will list my counterpoints in list form.So why was the revelation of the almighty, all-knowing God released then, of all times? In Israel in 4BC, (as the song goes) there was no mass communication.
To get to the point - popularity means nothing. Don't argue like mass opinion means anything, because it doesn't.
Oh thank you.
Unfortunately, my time is rather shot, but if you ever want a one-on-one debate, let me know. The consensus of experts is sometimes relevant, as it's a good indication of what is true. But that's all it is - an indication. Even the experts must answer to the evidence.
But of course. And? I'm not pointing out that there weren't people to listen to him, I'm pointing out that performing miracles in, say, 1970s New York would've had a far wider, faster impact.
Yes, but it clearly doesn't go back to anywhere near the beginning.
This is either wrong, or the majority of the world have shaky logic. Remember, there is no worldwide majority religion.
How would you even propose to demonstrate it came from God?
And got the timescale off by a fact of 10^3 or so.
If you present something significant in the future that I wanted elaborated upon I will do so. For now, I am contending with three people in this thread and several in others and that is my biological RAM's capacity.
I think you are thinking scientifically when you should be thinking historically, theologically, or philosophically. In science "supposedly" facts are rigorously pursued because at time absolute facts can be found. In history we deal with probabilities that X is true. In philosophy whether X is consistent with known principles, in theology a combination of the two plus same additional things. Resolution to fact in supernatural cases is not possible. It must be assigned a probability figure and scholar consensus is used in that effort. Unfortunately most of science is the same way or even much worse yet they still insist they are dealing with facts and Christians by faith alone and that just is not true.
Then another atheist would say why did not God show up a long time ago. Why has he waited all this time. Again we have to look at the facts and see if what God did do is reasonable and that is a judgment decision. This is similar to a optimal argument. Many times people say that if God exists why is this designed less than perfect or why does this happen and that is a fallacy. I. optimal to what purpose? 2. An optimal anything is almost an irrational concept in nature like infinity. God would be forced to improve what he made until he was basically making copies of himself. This ties in to your point because you are saying why did not God reveal Christ is a way that you have arbitrarily decided was optimal. If in new York then why not on every US channel, what about every world channel, what about in high deaf. As you can see there is no upper bound and the issue becomes absurd. However is what God did consistent with God's purpose.
Don't quote me but I think it was only around 4% of humans lived before Christ but that is irrelevant. It depends on when you say humans began. We can't agree on what Lee did at Gettysburg with battle reports, thousands of books, and eyewitness accounts to think we know details about things 50,000 years ago is far too optimistic. For me I just give up as pointless any claims over 10,000 years. maybe right maybe wrong I will await more data. One very popular interpretation of Genesis is that Adam was not the first homo sapien. He was the first with a soul. That means God was interacting in person with the very first human that required revelation. Beyond that as I said God only judges by our response to what we have received. We have always had nature and the Bible says that the glory of God can be derived from this alone and we are left without excuse.
As I have said God only judges on the basis of our response to what we are given. Most of the world. In fact probably over 95% throughout history have adopted some kind of God based conclusion. If you want to incorporate numbers as an indication of truth then your view opposes the 95 percentile. The issue of how God judges people who have never heard of Christ is complex and little known so I will leave it there.
Well there are several ways. Man instinctively perceives a moral truth much beyond what evolution alone can produce. In fact much of our morality is diametrically opposed to survival.
I didn't get this.
We are also unfortunate enough to live in a time where even when scientists do not have answers they insist they do. We also live in a time when babies are killed by the millions each year because "brilliant" academics have killed God and thereby removed any foundation for claiming life has sanctity. We also live in a time where science has invented the means by which we can kill everything on Earth (possibly therefore the universe) including ourselves and almost have a time or two. Thanks modern moralists, and thanks science. For every good thing science does it adds in a cost that is almost prohibitive.
Over two Billion people would testify they have experienced the God of the Bible. An experience that no other major religion offers and demands of every single believer. Are you prepared to say that every single one is wrong or delusional and by all means bring up other religions and maybe even UFO's I have begun to expect that and am prepared for it.
If I was an atheist of an agnostic Dawkin's would be my last resort. He is by far the worst debater of theology I have ever seen. His logic violates freshmen philosophy and his anger at what he does not think exists is transparent. Dawkins also said: But on to his response on morality, which doesnt differ from his previous answer (Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist). Dawkins doesnt want absolute morality, only a morality which shifts and changes as society desires. Thus, as Dawkins said previously, Whats to prevent us from saying Hitler wasnt right?it completely agrees with his moral view.
This arrogant attitude gets old. Is this why most of the fields of science themselves were created by Christians? Any whos who of science greats is saturated with Christians. In fact a whos who of just about any intellectual field of study is. Who claimed there is scientific evidence for the supernatural? That would be like claiming there is quantum mechanical evidence for why planets orbit suns. Supernatural evidence is mainly testimonial and science is impotent on the matter.
The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107
Nature is value neutral. If he wishes to assign precious to something he as usual must borrow from God to do so. Let me give you another scientist who lost all competence when outside the lab apparently, but was more honest than Sagan here:
One was too many Sagan's, at least when he ventured beyond his narrow band of competence. I thought even atheists would not quote Sagan anymore. His theology is kind of a joke. However by all means press on; these kinds of claims require little work to fault isolate.
Do we have some God DNA on file to compare it to?
You could easily determine that He was not the child of Mary and Joseph... unless, genetically, He was, in which case there's a bit of explaining to do.
What I am prepared to say is that I think you are messing with us. You seem far too intelligent for trying to back up your arguments with unreason, sometimes bordering on intellectual dishonesty. If one reads through this thread one could even get the impression that you are a liar.
I know, I was just joking. He would have Mary's DNA though.You could easily determine that He was not the child of Mary and Joseph... unless, genetically, He was, in which case there's a bit of explaining to do.
You may be prepared to say it but are you prepared to prove it? If you are going to make hyperbolic claims, especially concerning my motivation. Something you do not have the slightest access to then you must prove or abandon them. I normally end debates with anyone who throws liar around. Since I do not know you I will let it go this once, but if you wish to discuss anything with I would not do so again. So prove or concede. BTW most arguments I use, I originally heard from some of the most respected philosophers and theologians around so you evaluations say much more about you than my claims and if you can't even attempt to show them to be what you claim the mere assertion they are is impotent and meaningless.
Substitute God for evolution and then wicked fits.
The supposed Jesus can't catch a break. I have recently addressed a couple of complaints of the type Hitchens is famous for. He and they said why did God wait until 33AD to step in and offer salvation. Now you are saying why didn't he wait until now. There are several things wrong here.
My argument was made well before I gave Chesterton's comments. They were a satirical commentary not an argument. I noticed you did not even counter the short but accurate argument I did make.
Your smart unreason is frightening but explains todays US of A adequately.
