What does the Christian God want from us?

The first question you must ask yourself, before you get onto the others is the following:

Is the world the way it seems to be, or is it's true nature other than appears to analysis (read "science"?

If the second, then no amount of scientific analysis will move you forward an inch, except materially, within the world.

I believe the second, and this at rock bottom is the huge unbridgeable divide between the religious/non religious person, between the believer/atheist.

Once you admit the possibility that things might be other than they seem, then a whole universe of argument and discourse becomes irrelevant at a stroke.

The question ceases to be "what can I deduce from appearances".

It becomes "why and by whom have appearances been falsified" this is a much subtler question than any scientific investigation, and involves careful examination of the nature of one's own consciousness and reality, rather than conducting experiments in physics.

If only those who berate the religious would understand:

WE BELIEVE THE APPEARANCES YOU SO SLAVISHLY EXAMINE AND ANALYSE AND BASE YOUR ARGUMENTS UPON TO BE AN ILLUSION.

Think about it. Does that explain our otherwise-so-obvious idiocy and irrationality ?

The idiocy all you "rational" people so love to deride ?

If you want to talk to me about fundamentals you must address this question of the possibility of falsification of appearance, by whom (or what) and for what purpose.

If we believe seeking an explanation to be a meaningful activity, we "religious" seek something veiled, concealed behind the superficial appearance of the material world.

Bit more difficult than getting a physics degree, huh ?

Until you understand and address this as the root difference between the religious and the non-religious, you are totally unable to discuss/debate with the religious, because you have no common premise. Just wasting hot air.

The first question you must ask yourself, before you get onto the others is the following:

Is the world the way it seems to be, or is it's true nature other than appears to analysis (read "science"?

If the second, then no amount of scientific analysis will move you forward an inch, except materially, within the world.

I believe the second, and this at rock bottom is the huge unbridgeable divide between the religious/non religious person, between the believer/atheist.

Once you admit the possibility that things might be other than they seem, then a whole universe of argument and discourse becomes irrelevant at a stroke./QUOTE]


This is precisely the difference, and well stated.

Yet there are two points to consider, before dismissing all discussion.



1) Incompleteness.

Once upon a time, there was a movement (mainly in mathematics) that strove to 'complete' our understanding of the universe via extension of base principles. A modern day echo of this might be the work of Stephen Wolfram. But during that older movement there was a young mathematician named Kurt.

He *proved* that that not all 'questions' in a formal, axiomatically defined system can be answered. Yes. Proved. This proof put severe limitations upon the ultimate reach of scientific inquiry - even within a formal, axiomatically defined system.

The point: even if science cannot answer everything from base principles, that does not constitute evidence of (or denial of) the supernatural.

Incidentally, Kurt went insane shortly after (during?) his proof. Perhaps he should have gone out more.


2) Believers and Atheists

It seems to me that perhaps this is like categorising everyone as either a Whig or a Jacobite - there are other possibilities.

Before tackling the concepts like god and creation, we might choose to first tackle our own ignorance. *Both* theism and atheism fail to address fundamental questions, even on their own turf.

Such as the question of where a god would come from. Even a god that invents himself through sheer force of will... "I AM"... what of that? It implies causality, it implies a state without said god - implying a framework, no matter how tenuous - beyond god.

Science fails too. A "big bang" of spacetime itself - what scientist would say that this happened without cause? Natural or otherwise? Even in a steady-state universe - why is it here, why does it exist at all? Can't just accept "IT IS" - that's not science.


The point: eventually both roads end at the wilderness of philosophy, a *completely* different discussion.

- - - - -

Now, at last, for something personal. I have rather straddled both sides of this discussion because, yes, I straddle it internally as well.

I've never seen a ghostie or a god. A purely material universe seems just as circularly illogical as a created one... whatever the 'start' might have been, it's the 'start' or the mere 'being' that is the issue.

We can either aspire to know our situation, by whatever means, through whatever ridiculous discourse may follow - or we can just stuff it and forget the whole issue.

I intend on doing both, depending on how I feel at any given moment. Just remember what happened to Kurt.



Edit: as I saved this, I have read what Kurgan wrote, and it seems we have arrived at the same conclusion: discussion is worthwhile. We are similar in that regard, but in the end, when it comes to answers - I think there can be only one.

( ye gods, that was awful reference to make, wasn't it? )

Ah yes, the old "reality doesn't apply to me" argument

It still seems important that we continually strive to know our world and our maker. I don't think He would have given us brains if He didn't want us to use them. And as for the non-believers, they are all part of God's plan as well, and they generally have a lot to contribute to the discussion!

No, Chip. It's the old "Is the nature of reality correctly represented by its appearance ?" question.

Reality might just possibly be such as to present a misleading appearance. To rule this possibility out of court without consideration risks pre-judging the entire issue.

It's one possibility amongst many, but it does merit equal consideration.

The difficulty with this sort of language, Kurgan, is that it too prejudges the issue, and closes off discourse from the other side of the divide.

Many treatments of "God" are nothing more than rolling all the unanswered questions into a ball, labelling them "do not look inside" and calling them "God".

That this constitutes any sort of logical answer convincing to others is another illusion. It is just a repackaging of the question. It is not helpful in discussions with atheists. Despite any deep significance it may acquire for the believer.

Atheists like to look on people such as me as not having all our marbles, but don't realize how ridiculous their own posturings sound. Every time I hear someone say there's no such thing as a soul, I'm trying hard not to laugh because they basically just said, "I don't exist!" It's a point of illogic as bad as, "This statement is a lie", and far worse in its consequences.

I do believe that the Bible is inerrant, so I can not agree with him more (who am I to change God's Word)? But at this point, I not only alienate non-believers, I also alienate many Christians because I take the Bible literally.

A soul and consciousness are not the same thing. Trying to pretend they are is disingenuous at best.

"Scientific realism and instrumentalism
Scientific realism, or naïve empiricism, is the view that the universe really is as explained by scientific statements. Realists hold that things like electrons and magnetic fields actually exist. It is naïve in the sense of taking scientific models at face value, and is the view that most scientists adopt.

In contrast to realism, instrumentalism holds that our perceptions, scientific ideas and theories do not necessarily reflect the real world accurately, but are useful instruments to explain, predict and control our experiences. To an instrumentalist, electrons and magnetic fields are convenient ideas that may or may not actually exist. For instrumentalists, the empirical method is used to do no more than show that theories are consistent with observations.

Yep, the polar auroras aren't actually caused by charged particles from the sun hitting the Earth's magnetic field. It's actually the flowing hem of god's robe fluttering in the heavenly breeze.

This is probably an unresolvable problem, as entities such as ghosts, spirits and gods are fundamentally nonmaterial. As such, measurement by physical means can never detect their actuality, but can only see the effects they leave behind.

Now to some of us, it's blindingly obvious that the world is being affected by conscious intent every moment, realities and fictions created daily for us to share. These things are done by people, spiritual beings in their own right.

But not everyone buys the, "I'm here, dammit!" argument. Atheists like to look on people such as me as not having all our marbles, but don't realize how ridiculous their own posturings sound. Every time I hear someone say there's no such thing as a soul, I'm trying hard not to laugh because they basically just said, "I don't exist!" It's a point of illogic as bad as, "This statement is a lie", and far worse in its consequences.

The philosophical bent of science is of course to always seek the physical cause for something. I've been thinking for a bit on how one might devise an experiment that could positively rule out any possibility of a physical cause in any observed effect. There are a few that I've heard of, but don't feel ready to actually try. One was performed in the fifties, and it concerned people sitting still on a scale, exercising one thought process by which they gained up to 30 pounds, and then by another taking the weight off again. Plenty of people have messed around with a process whereby they create some image and try to make it solid, to the point where others can see something vague floating against the wall, but I haven't witnessed these for myself.

So the sky really is an upside down bowl and the stars are holes in it that allow the rain to come through? Fascinating. I wonder why our spaceships don't seem to hit it. I will never ever understand bible literalists. The bible contradicts itself all over the place. How can anyone possibly support a literal interpretation?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Psalms 145:8-9 (AMP)
8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and abounding in mercy and loving-kindness.
9 The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works [the entirety of things created].

Jeremiah 13:8-16 (AMP)
8 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
9 Thus says the Lord: After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 These evil people, who refuse to hear My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to worship them, shall even be like this girdle or waistcloth, which is profitable for nothing.
11 For as the girdle clings to the loins of a man, so I caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me, says the Lord, that they might be for Me a people, a name, a praise, and a glory; but they would not listen or obey.
12 Therefore you shall speak to them this word: Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Every bottle and jar should be filled with wine. [The people] will say to you, Do we not certainly know that every bottle and jar should be filled with wine?
13 Then say to them, Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will fill with drunkenness all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings who sit upon David's throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, says the Lord. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.
15 Hear and give ear, do not be proud, for the Lord has spoken [says Jeremiah].
16 Give glory to the Lord your God before He brings darkness and before your feet stumble upon the dark and twilit mountains, and [before], while you are looking for light, He turns it into the shadow of death and makes it thick darkness.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

There is such a view. Like the third proposed solution, this
fourth view understands the genealogy in Luke really to be Mary's,
but for different reasons. Here Heli is understood to be the
progenitor of Mary, not of Joseph. Joseph is not properly part
of the genealogy, and is mentioned only parenthetically,
Luke 3:23 should then read "Jesus ... was the son (so it was
thought, of Joseph) of Heli." The support for this view is
impressive.

a. Placing the phrase "so it was thought, of Joseph" in
parentheses, and thus in effect removing it from the
genealogy, is grammatically justified. In the Greek text
Joseph's name occurs with the Greek definite article
prefixed; every other name in the series has the article.
By this device Joseph's name is shown to be not properly
a part of the genealogy. Jesus was only thought to be his
son. This would make Jesus the son (that is, grandson or
descendant) of Heli, Mary's progenitor, and is consistent
with Luke's account of Jesus' conception, which makes clear
that Joseph was not his physical father (Luke 1:26-39).

b. This view allows the most natural meaning of begat to stand.
In other words, begat refers to actual physical descent
rather than to jumps to collateral lines.

c. Matthew's interest in Jesus' relation to the Old Testament and
the Messianic kingdom makes it appropriate that he give Joseph's
really descent from David through Solomon - a descent that is
also Jesus' legal descent - and thus gives him legal claim to
the Davidic throne.

d. Because Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus, his solidarity
with the human race, and the universality of salvation, it is
fitting that Luke show his humanity by recording his human
descent through his human parent, Mary. His pedigree is then
traced back to Adam.

e. The objection that Mary's name is not in Luke's version needs
only the reply that women were rarely included in Jewish
genealogies; though giving her descent, Luke conforms to
custom by not mentioning her by name. The objection that Jews
never gave the genealogy of women is met by the answer that
this is a unique case; Luke is talking about a virgin birth.
How else could the physical descent of one who had no human
father be traced? Furthermore, Luke has already shown a
creative departure from customary genealogical lists by
starting with Jesus and ascending up the list of ancestors
rather than starting at some point in the past and descending
to Jesus.

f. This view allows easy resolution of the difficulties surrounding
Jeconiah (Matt. 1:11), Joseph's ancestor and David's descendant
through Solomon. In 2 Sam. 7:12-17 the perpetuity of the
Davidic Kingdom though Solomon (vv. 12-13) is unconditionally
promised. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) later was the royal
representative of that line of descent for which eternal
perpetuity had been promised. Yet for his gross sin (2 Chron.
24:8-9), Jeconiah was to be recorded as if childless, and
no descendant of his would prosper on the Davidic throne
(Jer. 22:30). This poses a dilemma. It is Jeconiah through
whom the Solomonic descent and legal right to the throne
properly should be traced. Solomon's throne had already
been unconditionally promised eternal perpetuity. Yet Jeconiah
will have no physical descendants who will prosper on that
throne. How may both the divine promise and the curse be
fulfilled?

First, notice that Jeremiah's account neither indicates
Jeconiah would have no seed, nor does is say Jeconiah's line
has had its legal claim to the throne removed by his sin. The
legal claim to the throne remains with Jeconiah's line, and
Matthew records that descent down to Joseph. In 1:16, Matthew
preserves the virgin birth of Jesus and at the same time makes
clear that Jesus does not come under the curse upon Jeconiah.
He breaks the pattern and carefully avoids saying that Joseph
(a descendant of Jeconiah) begat Instead he refers to "Joseph,
the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." In the
English translation the antecedent of "whom" is ambiguous.
But in the Greek text, "whom" is feminine singular in form
and can refer only to Mary who was not a descendant of
Jeconiah. As to human parentage, Jesus was born of Mary alone,
through Joseph his legal father. As Jesus' legal father,
Joseph's legal claim passed to Jesus. But because Jesus was
not actually Jeconiah's seed, although of actual Davidic
descent through Mary, descendant of Nathan, Jesus escaped
the curse on Jeconiah's seed pronounced in Jeremiah (22:30.
Thus the problem is resolved.

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

What did Jesus mean when He said, "I and my Father are one."? The questioner has read into the Scripture that Jesus said He was equal to the Father in regards to their authority. Such is not the case. In the very text, Jesus declares that the Father "...is greater than all..." (10:29) Throughout His ministry, Jesus affirmed that the Father was greater than He. In John 5:19, Jesus states, "...I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." Later in the same text, He says, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just: because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30).

How then are the Christ and the Father "one"? In John 17:11, Jesus prays for His disciples with these words, "...that they may be one, as we are one." Again, in the same chapter at verses 22-23, Jesus says, "...that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one..." This same word, "one" is used in Galatians 2:28, where the apostle Paul says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." How are they one? In nature. Just as Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, men and women are all one in nature --- Christian --- so the Father and Son are one in nature --- God. That does not mean they are equal in their exercise of authority. Some in the church were placed in positions of greater responsibility and authority (ie. apostles, prophets, elders, teachers), however, they are still "...one in Christ Jesus" with the rest. The Father is greater than the Son in authority, but they are equal in nature -- both are deity.

There is no contradiction.

Over the years there have been numerous attempts to do careful scientific measurements of ESP, telekinesis, telepathy, televiewing etc. Whenever the tests are controlled carefully its been shown that there is either no effect or it is so small that it is within statictical error. Therefore, I like to refer to them collectively as telepathetic powers.

Have you ever wondered why investigators use psychics to find a murderer? And why they are so successful...?

Have you ever wondered why investigators use psychics to find a murderer? And why they are so successful...?

This is a false statement. The use of psychics to solve crimes has never proven to be repeatable. The only successes have been by chance.

It falls into the same category as diving rods, reading tea leaves, and the Magic 8 Ball.

~Ulrika~

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I've no doubt you'll think I am) but if one must resort to elaborate justifications, explanations, and apologetics, then you aren't really taking the Bible literally are you?

I agree that some of the seeming contradictions may come down to unclear and ambiguous language, but many of them do not. Apologists have to do some amazing mental gymnastics and justifications to explain them away.

You're correct in your assumption that no argument will dissuade me from believing the bible is a work of allegorical fiction that borrows heavily from other previous pagan traditions.

I am good with that Chip, although I wish it wasn't... This is a point that we can agree to disagree with