Spirituality
31 May 18
03 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSir, I neither agree nor disagree, as your analogy falls short of framing the question in a manner that explains the apparent conundrum inferred. (As if that makes any sense) 😉
Agree or disagree sir.
When an atheist helps an old lady across the road they do so with free will. However, when a Christian does the same, their 'good work' is not an expression of free will but an inevitable/automatic consequence of having been saved already. - In other words, it is the 'God' in them that does the good work, as opposed to the 'man' in the athiest.
I will now attempt a coherent answer.
In doing so I will lift out of its context something Jesus said.
"If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?"
Take two ordinary men. Both are moral. Both understand the difference between right and wrong. Both strive to do unto their neighbor as they would have done unto them.
One man has become a Christian by standing in agreement with God concerning his spiritual condition, and trusts in Jesus and His sacrificial and substitutionary death on the cross and receives the Spirit of God, and is born again.
The other man, on the other hand, says to himself, "I am not such a bad sort, in fact there's no apparent difference between me and that fellow next door that's always taking about Jesus."
What's the difference between those two men? They are vastly different though they both share similar lifestyles.
The works performed by the later have no permanent lasting value because God wants more than just hands and feet. God wants the heart. He's jealous for it. From the heart flow the issues of life.
The "saved" man understands that the "good works" he performs are not earning him salvation, but instead are being stored as treasures in heaven.
There is a saying, "you can't take it with you when you die", but in Christian parlance the saying goes, "you can't take it with you when you die, but you can send it ahead".
Good works are for rewards. Eternal life is a gift received by grace through faith and not of works.
It's not about us agreeing or disagreeing with each other, but about agreeing with God, ultimately.
I hope that sheds some light on my perspective to you-ward.
03 Jun 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyJust to remind you:
Ok, I guess I haven't been paying close attention because that's the first I've heard of it. Congrats, you are now a real atheist. Of course you now have stepped forward and made a claim. A claim which you can't possibly prove. How can one be certain of a claim which cannot be proven?
Prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59a) Equivocating Jesus Christ with the tooth fairy is pointless.
Just to remind you:
Prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
b) Technically, I never claimed the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @wolfgang59There’s no evidence the tooth fairy exists so there’s no evidence to refute.
Just to remind you:
Prove the Tooth Fairy does not exist.
There’s plenty of evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection which the honest atheist has to refute to deny the existence of God and deity of Christ.
God is an obvious logical possibility for the origin of the universe. Even if you do not accept it as the correct interpretation for the origin of the universe, just as how a Christian acknowledges that atheists are not entirely irrational for believing in a contained, self-originated universe, it would be considered entirely appropriate to believe in God as a possibility.
... But Wolfgang here is playing at Sam Harris.
"OoOooOooOoOOoo the EASTER BUNNY.."
Next we will hear about the FlYiNG SpagHetTi MoNstEr
Be careful of the Edge, ROMANS, you might cut yourself.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaJust because the argument has been used before does not invalidate it.
God is an obvious logical possibility for the origin of the universe. Even if you do not accept it as the correct interpretation for the origin of the universe, just as how a Christian acknowledges that atheists are not entirely irrational for believing in a contained, self-originated universe, it would be considered entirely appropriate to believ ...[text shortened]... ar about the FlYiNG SpagHetTi MoNstEr
Be careful of the Edge, ROMANS, you might cut yourself.
The point is you cannot claim something exists (especially something extraordinary)
and then ask anyone who disagrees with you to prove that it doesn't.
You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny, Yeti or Big Foot do not exist and I cannot
prove that gods do not exist - it is pointless anyone challenging me to do so.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59You also cannot prove what happened or didn't happen to get the Northern & Southern Kingdoms of Egypt to unite under one ruler. There are those who believe it was military conquest and others that believe that it was diplomacy or marriage.
Just because the argument has been used before does not invalidate it.
The point is you cannot claim something exists (especially something extraordinary)
and then ask anyone who disagrees with you to prove that it doesn't.
You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny, Yeti or Big Foot do not exist and I cannot
prove that gods do not exist - it is pointless anyone challenging me to do so.
Suggesting that the position is absurd to believe that it was A instead of B when A is a completely valid interpretation, and then comparing belief that Egypt formed out of military conquest to "belief in the tooth fairy" is what you are doing.
It IS perfectly reasonable to believe in God as a source for the origin of the universe, just as it is not unreaosnable to believe it is not...
But you are being pompous & arrogant and comparing such a belief to the tooth fairy.
But yeah... Please, make another post walking it back.
Wawlk it back all the way until you agree fully with me.
I appreciate that.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaAnd what about "everlasting life"? Is it perfectly reasonable to believe there is such a thing?
It IS perfectly reasonable to believe in God as a source for the origin of the universe, just as it is not unreaosnable to believe it is not..
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @secondsonOK. It is simple.
You sound confused.
I'm saying that one has the "ability" to choose only as long as one is alive.
It's that simple.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou expect me to believe that the Transcendent appeared in the body of a Jew 2,000 years ago? You expect me to believe that a virgin gave birth? You expect me to believe that a man rose from the dead? You expect me to believe that the God of Abraham is sui generis and that all the Gods of all the other religions and cultures are either fictions or demons? You expect me to believe that the God-story in the NT is the one true religion and that all other religions are false? You expect me to believe that the creator of the universe is one and the same as the man who died at Calvary?
You also cannot prove what happened or didn't happen to get the Northern & Southern Kingdoms of Egypt to unite under one ruler. There are those who believe it was military conquest and others that believe that it was diplomacy or marriage.
Suggesting that the position is absurd to believe that it was A instead of B when A is a completely valid interp ...[text shortened]... ing it back.
Wawlk it back all the way until you agree fully with me.
I appreciate that.
These are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. These are nothing like proposing a hypothesis how Egyptian kingdoms were united under one ruler by conquest or diplomacy.
You expect me to believe all that on the basis of a hotchpotch of anecdotes and hearsay for which there is no extant complete MS older than the 9th c. AD? Fail.
04 Jun 18
You expect me to believe that the Transcendent appeared in the body of a Jew 2,000 years ago? You expect me to believe that a virgin gave birth? You expect me to believe that a man rose from the dead? You expect me to believe that the God of Abraham is sui generis and that all the Gods of all the other religions and cultures are either fictions or demons? You expect me to believe that the God-story in the NT is the one true religion and that all other religions are false? You expect me to believe that the creator of the universe is one and the same as the man who died at Calvary?(Moobus)
Yes, none of that is preposterous.
God reached out to His Creation; He came to earth, born of woman and into a human body, roughly 2k years ago. It was a Hebrew woman. The Hebrews had been delivered out of Egypt & prepared for over a thousand years before to be the cradle of His arrival.
There is nothing preposterous in believing that God would reach out to His creation and the highest beings on Earth, and that He would go to Be inside of it. It also just so happens that the people He chose were the cradle of the world, and His Faith has gone on to metaphorically sweep over the world.
Just by saying these things in some startled voice and picking out the specifics of it, divorcing them from the greater picture, you aren't making an argument.
These are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. These are nothing like proposing a hypothesis how Egyptian kingdoms were united under one ruler by conquest or diplomacy.
You expect me to believe all that on the basis of a hotchpotch of anecdotes and hearsay for which there is no extant complete MS older than the 9th c. AD? Fail.
Why would there be absolute irrefutable proof that was designed to pass the test of every single human being? It defeats the very purpose of faith and changes the game completely.
But if you do want proof: you must fast and pray sincerely and you will feel God; that is the best means to obtain proof.
Lastly... I odn't understand yoru 9th century line.
Would you like to elaborate? I have heard people suggest that the Gospels were unclear at the root or selectively edited and I have argued against that before, but I have not heard this business about the 9th century.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59<<The point is you cannot claim something exists (especially something extraordinary)
Just because the argument has been used before does not invalidate it.
The point is you cannot claim something exists (especially something extraordinary)
and then ask anyone who disagrees with you to prove that it doesn't.
You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny, Yeti or Big Foot do not exist and I cannot
prove that gods do not exist - it is pointless anyone challenging me to do so.
and then ask anyone who disagrees with you to prove that it doesn't.>>
You can certainly ask them to disprove evidence or say why evidence is faulty in their view.
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaNo it is not.
It IS perfectly reasonable to believe in God as a source for the origin of the universe, .
It is absolutely impossible to deduce that.
Your belief in god is purely based on what you have been told or read.
There is no evidence in the real world to support the notion of gods and
what we observe actually points to no Designer or Creator. (Unless it
were totally perverse and hid all evidence from us!)
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
04 Jun 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59<<and
No it is not.
It is absolutely impossible to deduce that.
Your belief in god is purely based on what you have been told or read.
There is no evidence in the real world to support the notion of gods and
what we observe actually points to no Designer or Creator. (Unless it
were totally perverse and hid all evidence from us!)
what we observe actually points to no Designer or Creator.>>
Huh? How so? I think just the opposite is true.