Let's get some life in here!

Question for the religious folks...

It seems to me that if something is true now, we should be able to discover that it is true now. To give an example, if we somehow lost all knowledge about what the composition of water is, we could re-discover this information since it is still true. We would just have to make the appropriate observations.

Are your religious truths discoverable in the same way? If so, doesn't that mean that religious texts are not necessary? Let's say some people are dropped on a deserted island as kids and live there without any connection to the rest of the world. They could discover all sorts of things about nature, but it seems to me rather impossible that they will learn about Jesus or Mohammed. It also seems to me a major flaw of religion that something so supposedly important about life would not be available to these people, depending on the presence of a particular book.

I know there are religious people who don't place much emphasis on the texts, but I'm particularly interested in hearing from those people who do think, say, the bible is important, and how they deal with this issue.

Faith cannot be empiracally proven nor discovered.


Spelling doesnt count.

heresy says i !!!!!

couple things:

1. In Christian circles this is debated, so there isn't a correct answer.


2. Psalm 19


1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
2Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
3There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.


3. Romans 1


20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.


4. Jeremiah 5


21"Hear this, O foolish and senseless people,
who have eyes, but see not,
who have ears, but hear not.

unintentional comedy scale 7/10.

Well, that means that one could infer that there was God, but Jesus? I think he'd still need the Good Book for that.

This is a great question. But if Jesus IS God, as the Bible claims... then they are the same. no?


Also, the verse that Lois always quotes but doesn't know the reference, so I can't quote.... is that if you seek God you will find Him.

We were talking about a religious text, not if something was true or not. So take your ability to not read somewhere else.

i also find it funny that you quoted the bible to show that people could find god and jesus without the bible.

So to clarify, brvheart, in your opinion the bible is not necessary for one to discover all the 'truths' of christianity?

cant you read, vb?

this and every question is answered in the bible. ITS ALL YOU NEED.

You act as if I think you should worship the Bible. I don't.



Christianity? I could care less about Christianity.

Yeah. Allright, but I think you knew what I meant.

Otherwise, I guess maybe you aren't the right person to answer the question in the OP.

Sure, I know they think the bible is sufficient for knowing everything important -- the question is whether it is necessary.

(sorry to be so serious, I can't think of a way to properly match your sarcasm here)

I think you're right. My Bible knowledge is lacking.

i guess i wasnt being serious because i assumed you already know the answer to this question.

take your example of people on a deserted island. no freaking way they come up with anything resembling christianity. jesus doesnt exist. its all sun gods and wind gods and rain gods and whatever. but the christians would eventually find them and either convert them or kill them. so in the end, its all good.

Right, obviously I agree, that part wasn't really the question, more just an illustration of the point... I guess I'm trying to ask: does it not bother christians that something they think is true and important cannot actually be observed in the present-day world?

no. Why would it?

Because if something is true now, it should be just as discoverable now as it was 2000 years ago.

It's MORE discoverable now. More than it ever has been.

I wonder if other christians agree with you on that.

I mean, we have established that our desert islanders can't know about the whole "guy on a cross" incident. If you think that kind of detail is not important, then we have no issue, but I suspect that many christians won't take that view.

The guy on the cross is essential. Also, it's our job as Christians to go to the ends of the world and tell people. Nowadays the world is smaller and information moves faster. As for the parts of the world that currently have no communication with the outside world, they are shrinking quickly, but if someone in one of those places were to be seeking God, then I think, that God would provide a way for them to hear and believe. There are many documented occurrences of this happening even in recent times.

LOL.

irrelevant to the point of this thread.



obviously the majority of people who have ever sought "god" ended up believing something that was mutually exclusive with christianity.

Let's run this as an actual experiment. The island (let's call it "America") should be isolated from other societies for a long time. I'll bet you that these people living in "America" don't come up with Christianity on their own, but do develop religions that have some parallels.

I'll take action at 2:1 from anyone but Mormons.

You have created a strawman.

"Let's say that we establish that the only way for something to be true, is for it to be true in this way.

Therefore, the bible cannot be true."



Let's turn it around.

The history of the world has shown that left alone, all people have an internal belief in a Creator, in fact only communist and anarchist really place any likelyhood in atheism being a viable lifestyle.

Therefore atheism is basically a virus that keeps cropping up trying to destroy the natural direction of societies.

Let's say you took this argument to God one week before Christ was born on earth.

Do you think He would have been forced to abandon His plans for the salvation of mankind since your logic says that since what is about to happen, can't be proven true to someone in 2,000 years without God writing it down and preserving the story for all of history?

He might have answered: "Good thing I have a plan to have this all written down and preserved throughout the entire span of human existance then, isn't it?"

One of these?

But the question isn't about religion in general, it's about your specific version.

While history shows that people around the world independently generate a belief in a creator, it also shows that the vast majority of those people do not develop a belief in Christianity.

This is so circular I can barely wrap my mind around it, but I think you saying that bible is necessary for discovering the truth, but if it isn't there god will just make a new copy for those who don't have it? So the truth can always be figured out because there will always be a bible around?

could christians claim that christianity is an evolved form of worship? because the "gods" that early man created were based on nature and science has proven that it isnt "gods" at all, perhaps jesus is the inevitalbe end of religous thought. an entity that science cannot explain. so the answer could possibly be that given enough time, they would arive at a reasonable jesus like god.

if i were arguing against you i would say that the name "jesus" is irrelavant and only the idea of what he represents matters. but then i would have to wonder if these "island" people would ever come up with the idea that "god" would send his "son" down to earth to save them. perhaps is all i can say. i dont know.

but i wouldnt want to argue the christian side on this one. because its obvious that there can be no explanation that validates the importance of christian traditions.

People aren't born with the knowledge of almost anything per se, everything is passed down/taught to them.

So God created a way for His explanation of life to get out, and He's made it readily available. And He's commanded His followes to spread the news.


What you are asking for is for the Truth of God to be always in front of us in a manner that removes any doubt, then freedom of choice and the value of faith would be negated.


Look at it this way, if God made the earth with the price tag hanging around the north pole and the do no remove sticker on the bottom of each rock, then you would be 'forced' to believe in a new earth. Therefore your belief in God would be of no greater value than your belief in the sun.

For whatever reason, God values faith.

No, I'm saying that the Bible has been preserved since it's original copy, to allow mankind to find the truth.

Compare that to the belief in reincarnation, there is a code you must follow, and your actions in following this code results in your next life and it's comfort level. You were bad you come back poor and weak, you were good, you come back rich and beautiful.

Yet there is no real explanation of the code you are being asked to adhere to, nor any explanation of why you are being asked to follow it. It is more of a manmade excuse for why some people are rich and others are poor.

The Bible on the other hand gives you a clear picture of who God is, what is expected, and it gives you a manner of achieving the whole enchilada, removing any man's ability to dictate your eternal destination, by accepting what Christ did for us. The price is free, the result is eternal happiness. And in the manner this is explained, it gives us clear direction for living our lives here, directions that I think most people agree with. Love your neighbor, give to the poor, defend the helpless, help the sick, etc.

Man has corrupted the message many times and in many ways, but the Bible remains true, and the message is intact.

And if you choose to not believe, you are doing it because God allows you to reject him.

Once you have a 'provable' explanation of God, you remove that freedom.




And yes I see the 'circular' reasoning of God 'hiding'. But the truth is, not one person reading this now can say they didn't know about Christ and what He did on the cross, so while the guy in farthest Africa may have an excuse, you all don't.

I'm not sure why it's not obvious to you guys that we can't possibly agree since we have different starting points. Of COURSE people couldn't come up with Christianity on their own. Why would I or any other Christian want Christianity to randomly 'develop'. That would totally disprove the authenticity of Christianity. We believe that God is real and that Jesus is God's son. Where it 'develops' is 100% up to God.

It's equally funny that you aren't aware that this already happens. Also, thanks for the quality post. Debate wouldn't be the same without you.

I've personally heard missionaries speak that have gone to an area and had people expecting them. It's only possible if God is real. If he's made up then it doesn't matter.

i'm aware you think it happens. i'm aware you desperately want it to be true.



yeah, the only possible explanation for that would be "god" told them.

I think its interesting that you phrase it this way. I would have said that people are born with very little knowledge but can seek it. I think that's an illustrative difference between us: you see people as passive recipients of knowledge, while I see them as the active creators of it.



No, I don't think there's any reason to ever do away with doubt. That's actually another difference between the religious mindset and the scientific one: we cultivate and maintain doubt, whereas you guys are sure about all this.



I don't think any deep knowledge comes easy. The point of disagreement is about where to look for that knowledge. I think its located in nature itself. For instance, the truth about the benefits of compassion are available if you look at the relationships between people and the way they work -- it isn't necessary to read a book about it or to listen to a preacher. That's how different religions all over the world independently arose with similar teachings.

All that is stuff that makes your religion very nice (in your view), but doesn't have anything to do with whether its true or not.



I think that is a misunderstanding of how reasoning based on empirical evidence works. That there is evidence for something never necessitates that it is believed. There was always evidence that the earth was round, but no one was forced into believing that. There is evidence for newtonian physics, but we are not compelled to believe that either, and as we find new evidence we adjust. There is a preponderance of evidence for evolution and, well, you know about choice when it comes to that.

Well, they did once. They just aren't likely to do so again independently.



You wouldn't want it to randomly develop. You would want it to reliably develop. A truth that is independently discovered over and over again is more likely to be valuable. That many cultures have happened upon the idea that killing is to be discouraged is a testament to the universal value of that rule. The fact that very few cultures came up with the story of how Ganesh got his elephant head is an indication of the narrow, culture-specific meaning of that story.

I'm sure some of them believe some form of this, but its hard to see how one could effectively argue this point.



I think the name 'jesus' is irrelevant, and he certainly was not the first or last person to discover self-sacrifice. In fact, there is evidence that even the cross-with-a-guy-on-it symbol predated jesus and was part of the greek mystery cults that eventually informed christianity. Anything valuable that some dude in the middle east realized is independently realizable now by anyone, anywhere.

Her breasts have been chopped off and they look blue and deflated, the nipples a disconcerting shade of brown. Surrounded by dried black blood, they lie rather delicately, on a china plate I bought at the Pottery Barn on top of the Wurlitzer jukebox in the corner, though I don't remember doing this. I have also shaved all the skin and most of the muscle off her face so that it resembles a skull with a long, flowing mane of blond hair falling from it, which is connected to a full, cold corpse; its eyes are open, the actual eyeballs hanging out of their sockets by their stalks. Most of her chest is indistinguishable from her neck, which looks like ground-up meat, her stomach resembles the eggplant and goat cheese lasagna at Il Marlibro or some other kind of dog food, the dominant colors red and white and brown. A few of her intestines are smeared across one wall and others are mashed up into balls that lie strewn across the glass-top coffee table like long blue snakes, mutant worms. The patches of skin left on her body are blue-gray, the color of tinfoil. Her vagina has discharged a brownish syrupy fluid that smells like a sick animal, as if that rat had been forced back up in there, had been digested or something.
I spend the next fifteen minutes beside myself, pulling out a bluish rope of intestine, most of it still connected to the body, and shoving it into my mouth, choking on it, and it feels moist in my mouth and it's filled with some kind of paste which smells bad. After an hour of digging, I detach her spinal cord and decide to Federal Express the thing without cleaning it, wrapped in tissue, under a different name, to Leona Helmsley. I want to drink this girl's blood as if it were champagne and I plunge my face deep into what's left of her stomach, scratching my chomping jaw on a broken rib. The huge new television set is on in one of the rooms, first blaring out The Patty Winters Show, whose topic today is Human Dairies, then a game show, Wheel of Fortune, and the applause coming from the studio audience sounds like static each time a new letter is turned. I'm loosening the time I'm still wearing with a blood-soaked hand, breathing in deeply. This is my reality. Everything outside of this is like some movie I once saw.
In the kitchen I try to make meat loaf out of the girl but it becomes too frustrating a task and instead I spend the afternoon smearing her meat all over the walls, chewing on strips of skin I ripped from her body, then I rest by watching a tape of last week's new CBS sitcom, Murphy Brown. After that and a large glass of J&B I'm back in the kitchen. The head in the microwave is now completely black and hairless and I place it in a tin pot on the stove in an attempt to boil any remaining flesh I forgot to shave off. Heaving the rest of her body into a garbage bag, my muscles slathered in Ben-Gay, easily handling the dead weight's, I decide to use whatever is left of her for a sausage of some kind.

Brvhheart, my only point was that there isn't a need to construct a hypothetical island since there's a perfectly good one to reference in history.

I think they wouldn't do it independently, because it's true. You think it's man-made. We are at an impasse.



we agree

That and height




cultivating doubt is based on recognition of your inability to know, not in an alturistic superior method of thought. And our faith in our knowledge is different than yours, because our faith is in the 'Who' is the one with all the answers, not in our own knowledge.



Really? Nature teaches you that caring for the sick and elderly is the better way? You sure nature doesn't teach you the exact opposite?
Christianity taught things completely contrary to standard knowledge, the first shall be last, if you want to lead, you must serve, if you give from your heart, you give the most you can. The basis for Christianity is horrible if you want to overthrow the yoke of the oppressive Romans, since it tells you to render unto Ceaser, and to pray for those put in charge over you. It would be horrible for a group to control others through the priesthood, "there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. The way to salvation is to ask and recieve, one on one with God, no middle man needed. The Bible says to give to the poor because your reward is in Heaven.

You'll have to excuse me if you want to make the point that all this is manmade since we can't figure it by ourselves.

Christianity should never have survived, it was considered a subset of Judism, which was a religion at odds with the empire, and was the chosen whipping religion by many Roman Ceasers. There were much 'better' religions around, ones that appealed much better to our base desires, like gods of war and sex. Christianity asked people to turn the other cheek, and remain pure in your sexuality. Other religions gave people ways to bribe god to get their selfish ways, Christianity asked people to put aside their selfish ways and adopt God's selfless ways.

Nope, nature doesn't allow for Chrisitianity to develope, any more than it allows for the knowledge of God's ability to know everything, hear all prayers, and be everywhere at once. something completely foriegn to all things natural, yet comfortably understood by everyone.

I guess I should trust you on all this, since you can probably see heaven from up there.



Isn't knowing 'who' has all the answers a form of your own knowledge? Why is it ok that there is no doubt about that?



Absolutely. The idea that nature is purely brutal and selfish is religious propaganda.



That stuff is not contrary to the knowledge of anyone who has spent any time really thinking about it.

Recent research has shown that chimpanzees and some other apes show cooperation, self-sacrifice, and a sense of fairness. Complete individual selfishness can not survive in any social species.

Not to mention the same basic lesson is in pretty much every culture around the world - its in the Bhagavad Gita, its in the Greek Mysteries, etc. etc.



I don't quite understand what you are getting at here, but surely the church achieved great political power.



"Never should have survived" if one thinks that only selfish things have a good chance of surviving... Nothing in nature is truly independent. The extent to which people think of themselves as separate, independent, selfish beings disconnected from each other and from the earth is the extent to which they destroy themselves. Compare the way the native americans treated the land as part of themselves to what we have done to it.

No but I can hit my head on ceiling fans



I guess I see your point, if all knowledge is equal. I don't have faith that gravity works, I have proof. I don't have proof that God exist , I have faith. So sure there is a difference. The question is does the difference have a value level?


Nature vs Nurture




That would explain why I don't, I hardly ever REALLY think about anything.



Insert Connecticut joke here.


I don't think you are right here, there are many principles of Christianity that are not found in other religions, but let's agree to disagree on this since I don't want to look it all up again.



Catholic church was much more political than religious for most of it's history.



If nothing in nature is truly independant, than the world is a symbiotic being? Lucky everything 'evolved' at the same rate then. Just one thing falls off the march, and the whole thing comes crashing down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcDKNZAbOb8



I have no quarrel with that description.



I don't get the rate of evolution thing.

But sure, you've probably heard of the Butterfly Effect, the idea that say, a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can set off a hurricane in the Caribbean. (especially since you are an Ashton Kutcher fan)

cult-speak

incredible flaming cult-speak

unabletocomeupwithanarguement speak