Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
Box, you're speaking in vast generalities and I'm trying to hone in on something we can sink our teeth into. I think there's some extra-biblical evidence we can talk about but it's not nearly as convincing or persuasive, in my mind, as a good historical look at the evidence within the Bible.
For example, if we dig into 1 Cor 15:3-8 a bit...
@unknownuser said:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
This is generally believed by historians to be an early creedal statement that dates to within a few years of Jesus' death.
Jesus died in the early 30's and Paul was converted some 3-5 years later. 1 Corinthians was written in the mid 50's putting the statement at MOST about 20 years after Jesus' death. But Paul implies that he 'received' the creed which historians believe to have an Aramaic character which would suggest that it was created at a time when the church was made primarily of Jews rather than gentiles. Based on these and other historical evidences, this points to the very early date of the creed. This counters the notion that the resurrection could have been some sort of later evolution of an idea that developed over time.
Starting here, do you have any disputed on historical grounds?
-Brodie
-
I'm sorry, I see no point in continuing with this.
You believe that what is said in the bible is true, I believe it is the stories of many people and as such is written with an agenda.
We will have to agree to disagree. -
So ... we're backing up the claims made in the Bible by using ... the Bible? This has been an interesting discussion, but it seems we've entered the realm of the absurd now. I'm out.
-
I'm simply suggesting for the sake of the argument that the Bible is a book - a collection of letters, histories, poems, etc. It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with. I man wrote a letter, we can use the historical method to derive a reasonable estimation as to when the letter was written whether that letter is from Paul, or Plato.
I'm not suggesting that because Paul said it in the Bible, it's true. I'm merely showing that based on the historical method, we can illustrate that this statement was common among Christians within a few years after Jesus' death.
If you understand the historical method then I'll ask that you refute my points from within that method rather than making illogical claims and generalizations. Otherwise, concede the point but tell me why it's irrelevant.
-Brodie
-
@box said:
I'm sorry, I see no point in continuing with this.
You believe that what is said in the bible is true, I believe it is the stories of many people and as such is written with an agenda.
We will have to agree to disagree.see above
-
@box said:
@box said:
I'm sorry, I see no point in continuing with this.
You believe that what is said in the bible is true, I believe it is the stories of many people and as such is written with an agenda.
We will have to agree to disagree.see above
I find your blatant intellectual dishonesty refreshing. It makes the pointless conversations much more short and sweet.
-Brodie
-
You are free to insult me, I have made my points clearly, I have not insulted your intelligence and I have bowed out of the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
-
It's illogical, Brodie, only because of your approach. You are still insisting on standing reason on its head.
You say "It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with."
That's not the case at all, in fact it's entirely the wrong way round. Those disputing with you don't start from the position of disagreeing with the Bible and thereby disbelieving what is in it. According to historical method, they will be cogniscent of it, but remain duly sceptical until such time as it can be corroborated from another source.
As Box has already indicated, from a historical perspective, parts of the Bible do appear to have some basis in historical/archaeological fact. Other parts are equally contrary to scientific evidence; and yet other parts are likely to remain forever entirely speculative.
Calling people intellectually dishonest because they refuse to engage in your peculiar brand of 'logic' is fooling no one. I too am done discussing with you.
-
@unknownuser said:
So ... we're backing up the claims made in the Bible by using ... the Bible? This has been an interesting discussion, but it seems we've entered the realm of the absurd now. I'm out.
Let us assume that there is no Bible, because many countries do not have it ...!
Let us suppose that we have no consciousness, because many persons ‘violate’ it…!…But the NATURE remains, and it says a lot…
Since the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that all of us are without excuse, on our attitude regarding the rejection of the Creator… -
@box said:
You are free to insult me, I have made my points clearly, I have not insulted your intelligence and I have bowed out of the discussion by agreeing to disagree.
Sorry Box, I'm a bit snarky today and that probably was said in frustration. I kind of felt like you bait and switched me a bit there by asking the question and referring to your knowledge of the historical method and then summarily rejecting a historical text after I'd put together what I feel was a thought out and reasoned response.
-Brodie
-
grumbles
Post removed. I was in a foul mood last night, apparently.
grumbles
-
@idahoj said:
@unknownuser said:
To my mind, that's a negation of faith's very core: the irrational act of actively embracing a concept one, by definition, cannot proof to be true or even completely understand.
An excerpt from an article I've read here: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/thomas.htm
@unknownuser said:
"What's less easy to understand is the thought-out, rational pursuit of God against one's better judgement. Loving God and seeking to serve God against one's interests, plus the sheer difficulty of the attempt to love one's neighbor, is, it seems to me, the best proof of religion."
or just plain faith, IMO.
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)
Pretty well sums it up for me.
Cheers.
The whole idea off believing is not seeing it completely. If you see it, you don't have to believe. So, the intellect is not the way, and however smart U are, God is out of the range of your mind by definition. But, thanks to God, Human is much more than intellect! You have to consider this when showing evidences that there is no God, using only one small percent of our existance - the material one.
-
@srx said:
But, thanks to God, Human is much more than intellect! You have to consider this when showing evidences that there is no God, using only one small percent of our existance - the material one.
-
I think faith and science can actually meet...in fact they seem to exist perfectly satisfactorily in the clergyman/physicist in the link posted by Solo. I know quite a few other people like him; although it's a feat I have never, personally, been able to pull off. I know very many more who accept both sides because they simply don't allow themselves to push too hard at addressing the differences between the scientific account and the Biblical one...a kind of uneasy truce.
I doubt that there is actually much operational difference between those of quiet faith and those with none that both embrace the discoveries currently being made at the cutting edges of science. Both revel in the previously unimagined wonder and complexity of what we call reality; yet both draw somewhat different conclusions from it. Having been on both sides, it's really no biggee...as long as you believe that whichever stance you take helps you to be a better person.
It's a purely personal take on it, but I believe that those who feel their faith being threatened by the advance of science, really ought to re-examine the roots of that faith...because if that faith can't square up to reality, then there's something wrong with it.
As for those that go even further and attempt to denounce science and either ignore or rewrite the evidence currently emerging because it doesn't fit with their theology...Creationists by any other name...or fundamentalist Muslims...they are deluded. There is no other way of putting it.
-
@alan fraser said:
It's a purely personal take on it, but I believe that those who feel their faith being threatened by the advance of science, really ought to re-examine the roots of that faith...because if that faith can't square up to reality, then there's something wrong with it.
@alan fraser said:
As for those that go even further and attempt to denounce science and either ignore or rewrite the evidence currently emerging because it doesn't fit with their theology...Creationists by any other name...or fundamentalist Muslims...they are deluded. There is no other way of putting it.
in Islam, people are told and taught to seek knowledge, hikmah (philosophy) and develop science. thus there were Al Jabbar, Al Kindi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rusy, etc. before the people of mysticism era came along.
for those who claim the teaching was otherwise, they obviously stand and move against God and His Messengers themselves.Cheers.
[ed] God creates everything for human and everything else side by side. and He certainly would like to have human know what they are and how to utilise them for better live and living. they need knowlegde, philosophy of them, and build science based on them.
-
@unknownuser said:
It's illogical, Brodie, only because of your approach. You are still insisting on standing reason on its head.
I've given a very specific example of my approach and thus far the response has amounted to 'it's in the Bible therefore it's not true.' There has been no refutation of my claim that this statement in 1 Corinthians is an early Christian creed based on historical means.
@unknownuser said:
You say "It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with."
That's not the case at all, in fact it's entirely the wrong way round. Those disputing with you don't start from the position of disagreeing with the Bible and thereby disbelieving what is in it. According to historical method, they will be cogniscent of it, but remain duly sceptical until such time as it can be corroborated from another source.
I think you're missing the point. There aremultiple sources that corroborate that Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected. My point is that this is the earliestsource which points to this fact. There's can't be multiple earliest sources.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
Brodie wrote:
It's illogical to NOT believe something simply because it happens to be in a book you disagree with.So you believe in Middle Earth?
No. But if you'd like to make a historical case for its existence, I'm all ears. I've never heard the case that Tolkien thought he was writing anything other than fiction.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
I think you're missing the point. There are multiple sources that corroborate that Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected.
Umh! yes, you could simply ask one...given that it's in the Creed.
That's all settled then. The Bible is confirmed as historically accurate. Therefore Genesis is true. Therefore God created the universe. End of thread.
-
Amen.
(there's no middle earth?)
-
@alan fraser said:
@unknownuser said:
I think you're missing the point. There are multiple sources that corroborate that Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected.
Umh! yes, you could simply ask one...given that it's in the Creed.
That's all settled then. The Bible is confirmed as historically accurate. Therefore Genesis is true. Therefore God created the universe. End of thread.If I might resurrect this thread [...ooo, see what I did there? clever]...
That wasn't my aim from one small argument of course. I was simply trying to establish that the claimof Jesus' resurrection, at least, began very early on. This counters the common argument that such a 'myth' developed many years later like a game of telephone. Alone, the argument certainly by no means proves that the event being claimed actually happened, but it seemed like an appropriate place to start.
I didn't anticipate so much falderal on the matter, however. I guess there's no use continuing on to any other points though as everyone seems to have given up on me.
-Brodie
Advertisement