Christianity and logic

Originally posted by moonbus
The technical term for it is “perspectivism”, which means that a what person sees is at least in part determined by his presuppositions. (Which is not to be confused with “relativism”, if by relativism one means that whatever anyone thinks is true is true (which is incoherent).)

Example: When Galileo looked through his telescope at the moons ...[text shortened]... t.)

For this reason, theists and non-theists often find themselves talking at cross purposes.

"Example: When Hinds considers a fossil, he sees something at most 6,000 years old, whereas if I consider the same fossil, I see something millions of years old. The rock itself is the same; it is only the presuppositions which are different. "

What you both see is a fossil I agree, what you both think about it are two different things
and it is possible no one has it right. This is somewhat like I was talking about, we tend
to look at things the way we think they should be, making them what we believe them to
be.

This does have us yelling at each other from time to time, because we were very clear in
our minds on what we just said, but the one we were talking to could be looking at it very
differently than we are. I guess this is all the more reason to be giving a little grace to each
other than we typically do, it could be our cross talk has more to do with our starting points
than our dishonestly or honesty.

Originally posted by moonbus
The technical term for it is “perspectivism”, which means that a what person sees is at least in part determined by his presuppositions. (Which is not to be confused with “relativism”, if by relativism one means that whatever anyone thinks is true is true (which is incoherent).)

Example: When Galileo looked through his telescope at the moons ...[text shortened]... t.)

For this reason, theists and non-theists often find themselves talking at cross purposes.

Nice post by the way.

Originally posted by vivify
I see what you're saying. But let me add one thing:

I don't think that Christians simply see things through Jesus-colored glasses. I think it also has to do with the fact that many churches grind the idea that God and the Bible must be respected and honored (or even defended) at all costs, into the minds of its members.

What got Galileo into trouble ...[text shortened]... matter of there being a different perspective; it's also an issue of free thought being clouded.

You really think that Christians are brain dead people who are brainwashed and unable to
think for themselves? You should get out more and meet people who don't think like you
without putting such negative slams against them.

Originally posted by bill718
It's mildly entertaining to read the posts of people here trying explain, prove, or disprove Christianity using logic or reason. It doesn't work that way folks.Christianity and the teaching of Christ are outside the realm of human reasoning. There are some things we have to take on faith... speaking of which faith is a gift, you either have it, or you don't. You can debate the subject of you wish, but in the end, it changes nothing.

It is true that some things about Christianity we will have to believe by faith since we were not there to see it. However, we can use our minds and use what we do see, such as the empty tomb in Jerusalem, the Shroud of Turin, and the Sudarium of Oviedo, along with what is written as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

God's Crime Scene

YouTube

Originally posted by vivify
I see what you're saying. But let me add one thing:

I don't think that Christians simply see things through Jesus-colored glasses. I think it also has to do with the fact that many churches grind the idea that God and the Bible must be respected and honored (or even defended) at all costs, into the minds of its members.

What got Galileo into trouble ...[text shortened]... matter of there being a different perspective; it's also an issue of free thought being clouded.

Yes, I agree with you there. St. Francis of Assisi is reputed to have said that if the Church said black was white, he'd have believed the Church and denied his senses. 'If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out,' I guess.

There is also the historical fact that the Church for the better (or worst) part of a millennium had the political power to enforce thought-control, on pain of death by slow torture. This tended to eliminate alternative perspectives from the social 'thought pool', as it were. The Church no longer enjoys the authority to have people cast into prison and burnt at the stake for proposing such heresies as that the Earth moves or is 6 billions years old. It has taken centuries to break the Church's power in this regard, and we're not going back, RJHindses notwithstanding.

This hankering after ruthless mind-control is not peculiar to medieval Christianity, of course. It appears to be part and parcel of the absolutist mind-set. The witch-hunt mentality is showing its ugly face again in the Middle East right now (in the form of Islamic State).

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is true that some things about Christianity we will have to believe by faith since we were not there to see it. However, we can use our minds and use what we do see, such as the empty tomb in Jerusalem, the Shroud of Turin, and the Sudarium of Oviedo, along with what is written as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

God's Crime Scene

[youtube]a9zEqyi1c7Q[/youtube]

You weren't there when somebody was placed in the tomb, so you don't know whose body it was.

You weren't there when Jesus was buried (in whatever tomb), so you don't know that the Shroud of Turin was the wrapping on Jesus's body.

You weren't there when the tomb was opened, so you don't know a) that the body of Jesus was ever in there, or b) that the body, if it was in there, was not removed by human hands.

You weren't there when the events recounted in the NT happened, so you don't know that what's recounted in the NT was accurately reported.

You weren't there at the Council of Nicea, so you don't know whether the bishops got the right scrolls canonized, and only the right scrolls, without missing any.

Believe it all on faith, if you wish; knowledge it is not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really think that Christians are brain dead people who are brainwashed and unable to
think for themselves? You should get out more and meet people who don't think like you
without putting such negative slams against them.

When Christians collectively deny findings by scientists that have been arrived at through over a century of exhaustive study, evidence and peer review, simply because it contradicts the Bible--wouldn't that be a prime example of Christians not thinking for themselves?

What I just said isn't slamming Christians; it's simply the truth.

Originally posted by moonbus
You weren't there when somebody was placed in the tomb, so you don't know whose body it was.

You weren't there when Jesus was buried (in whatever tomb), so you don't know that the Shroud of Turin was the wrapping on Jesus's body.

You weren't there when the tomb was opened, so you don't know a) that the body of Jesus was ever in there, or b) that the bo ...[text shortened]... rolls, without missing any.

Believe it all on faith, if you wish; knowledge it is not.

However, the accumulative evidence makes such a strong circumstantial case that I believe the man is Jesus and He rose from the dead to prove He is the Son of God just like is recorded in the New Testament. I believe because I have the mind of ....

The Near Genius 😏

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by vivify
When Christians collectively deny findings by scientists that have been arrived at through decades of exhaustive study, evidence and peer review, simply because it contradicts the Bible--wouldn't that be a prime example of Christians not thinking for themselves?

What I just said isn't slamming Christians; it's simply the truth.

You are referring to those scientists with the atheist agenda to disprove God by the Satanic theory of evolution. You ignore the collective findings of the scientists that provide evidence against evolution and for an intelligent Creator, like the God of the Holy Bible.

However, I consider all the evidence and see that it takes less faith to believe in the intelligent God of the Holy Bible than in the unintelligent god of evilution. That must be because I have the mind of ....

The Near Genius 😏

Originally posted by vivify
When Christians collectively deny findings by scientists that have been arrived at through over a century of exhaustive study, evidence and peer review, simply because it contradicts the Bible--wouldn't that be a prime example of Christians not thinking for themselves?

What I just said isn't slamming Christians; it's simply the truth.

Not much hope in talking to you I guess.

So much for August uh!

Originally posted by KellyJay
What you both see is a fossil I agree, what you both think about it are two different things and it is possible no one has it right. This is somewhat like I was talking about, we tend to look at things the way we think they should be, making them what we believe them to be.

This does have us yelling at each other from time to time, because we were very ...[text shortened]... ould be our cross talk has more to do with our starting points
than our dishonestly or honesty.

I am wary of the fact that humans’ propensity to project what they want to see into things is sometimes greater than their constancy in seeing no more than is really there.

The crucial difference is, I'm willing to consider the possibility that the presently available evidence might be contradicted by some other evidence tomorrow, whereas Hinds isn't. Hinds stonewalls, no matter [what] the evidence is. I noted with interest some very honest statements in another thread by former Christians as to why they left the dogmatic path.

Wulebgr, for example, posted this:
"Evidence is precisely why I am no longer a creationist. I was in the 1980s, but efforts to defend these views in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution and the realization that I was wholly misunderstanding several aspects of basic science, led me out of the darkness into the light.

I also learned more about the Bible as I learned to read Greek as well as gaining a little knowledge about the nature of Hebrew thought. Literalism is unsustainable once a person learns a little about languages and literature. Reading other ancient texts also helped."

He was willing to re-evaluate in light of the preponderance of evidence. I'm sure it was no easy thing for him.

Mind you, I don't for an instant believe that science can explain everything. I have had innumerable paranormal experiences, both as a child and as an adult; things for which modern science has no plausible explanation. These experiences have convinced me that there is much we do not understand; they have not convinced me that there is anything supernatural, much less divine, going on. For me, it is a matter of seeing only what is really there and not over-interpreting it with projected (human-as-divine) intentions and purposes.

All rivers may flow to the sea, but they don't all follow the same bed. Go in peace, and grace be with you.

Originally posted by moonbus
I am wary of the fact that humans’ propensity to project what they want to see into things is sometimes greater than their constancy in seeing no more than is really there.

The crucial difference is, I'm willing to consider the possibility that the presently available evidence might be contradicted by some other evidence tomorrow, whereas Hinds isn't. Hin ...[text shortened]... may flow to the sea, but they don't all follow the same bed. Go in peace, and grace be with you.

I get it, trust me! Where I think a danger for some is they think well this guy is this really
bad therefore they are all, or I'm glad I'm not as bad as he is when in some areas you
really could be! The crucial differences can be big yes, they also can be very subtle and
difficult to spot.

I don't concern myself to much about those that leave the faith due to science. Mainly
because that is like saying well oil isn't the same as water so I reject oil. The sad thing
about science is that there is a huge amount of faith being applied in it too, accepting
things that cannot be proven wrong is just faith. When you start to think you cannot
be wrong, exactly how far away are you from someone whom you just said was a bad
example?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get it, trust me! Where I think a danger for some is they think well this guy is this really
bad therefore they are all, or I'm glad I'm not as bad as he is when in some areas you
really could be! The crucial differences can be big yes, they also can be very subtle and
difficult to spot.

I don't concern myself to much about those that leave the fait ...[text shortened]... nnot
be wrong, exactly how far away are you from someone whom you just said was a bad
example?

All the new discoveries in different sciences keep proving that the Holy Bible has been right all along. Scientists once said that the universe always existed, now they have come around to bellieve it had a beginning, which Genesis had proclaimed all along. However, they eill not accept an intelligent God for the cause of the beginning.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I get it, trust me! Where I think a danger for some is they think well this guy is this really
bad therefore they are all, or I'm glad I'm not as bad as he is when in some areas you
really could be! The crucial differences can be big yes, they also can be very subtle and
difficult to spot.

I don't concern myself to much about those that leave the fait ...[text shortened]... nnot
be wrong, exactly how far away are you from someone whom you just said was a bad
example?

I try not to lump the sensible ones in with the lunatic fringe bunch, on both sides of the theistic/non-theistic divide. Unfortunately, lunatics tend to be more vocal and (willy nilly) draw one's attention.

Originally posted by moonbus
I try not to lump the sensible ones in with the lunatic fringe bunch, on both sides of the theistic/non-theistic divide. Unfortunately, lunatics tend to be more vocal and (willy nilly) draw one's attention.

That is going to be true no matter what side of the discussion you are on.

For me, and I'm only speaking for me I see these discussions as three fold, there is
science, faith, and reality. Both science and faith are describing what their views of reality
are, and than there is reality which doesn't care what we believe or come up using all of
our methods, it is what it is.

We all try to figure out reality, those of us people of faith, and those that think they can
look at the natural world and use science to do it. There two different perspectives correct
and reality/truth will not change regardless of who is right or wrong. If the stories in
scripture are correct than they should not change over time, to change would introduce
error. If science is figuring it out, great the more it studies the natural world the better off
we are who rely on it.

We are all going to go to the grave not really knowing, but we will live out our lives walking
out in our faith be it in science or scripture or whatever.