-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions
- Thread starter Mycernius
- Start date
sabro said:
I sympathise, Sabro. I am in much the same boat as you. I just can't be atheist, even when I want to! :banghead:
Which of course led on to all sorts of questions in my mind... there exists a god... what is it like, what manner of thing is it, how do I relate to it... what do I do about it? I think many people spend their whole lives puzzling over such things. :clueless:
*sighhh*... I wish I didn't believe in God... :buuh:
I admit, I haven't been following the arguments here - I've only read this page, so I'm out of touch. :sorry:
Pararousia said:
That kind of statement (especially made in caps!.. lol) is more or less guaranteed to antagonise people. Because no-one wants to feel they are controlled by someone/something else (me, I am a control freak! Waaaah! Get away!!!). Seriously, I don't view a god as something that 'controls' us. Sure, any god(s) have to be all-knowing (otherwise it wouldn't be God!) particularly as it is something outside of the constraints of time as we know it, but we do have free will. Otherwise we would just be puppets or robots, and we quite clearly are not. If God was 'in control', he would 'control' people so that everyone believed in him, and there would be no such thing as atheists!
Tsuyoiko said:
That's good!I can catch what you're saying there. As is obvious, of course, I strongly reason that the Jewish model, and by extension, the Christian model are no better than the Islamic model or the Greek model or any other. I don't believe there is no god, I honestly don't know that there is this god or that god--in other words, god-model. I can see that those folks living in the first century who, we might say, layed the foundation for our later Christian thought, didn't know any more than we do today--they only thought they did, and were big on that. I can understand how it would all be meaningless to you to do that academic exercise, although I would appeal to the 'search' and the deeper knowledge, for the value of such exercise. It is, as you say, academic exercise, I do not deny that at all; that detracts from its value and truthfulness in no manner, however.
Pararousia, my glove has been thrown in. I have proof in the posts in the forum and in my PM box that say that you never actually answered that question which I had asked you in my #73, on page three. In your #99 post, also on this thread, you seemed to have copied the texts given by Tsuyoiko which simply gave each rendering that one would find from the several narratives--which cannot, by any means all be true history. I had asked you, simply, what you had thought had been written on that placque. I again brought up that point and attempted to clarify it in a mild, and polite way. In your post #136 on this thread, you wrote, and I quote, "...and, in particular, to a reply regarding the signs on the cross, even though I've answered this a couple of times in previous posts, I'm not verbose so maybe previously I have not been crystal clear or thorough enough. I'll try again." Then you went into a quote from someone else about what inerrancy of the Bible means. And I simply could not find where you answered with what you had thought had been written on that sign--and it was a single sign, not several "signs" .
Of course, I cannot force you to answer, and will hold no hard feelings whatsoever if you continue to dodge answering directly and precisely to the question which was, again, in looking at the possible choices, what do you think had been written on that sign that had supposedly been posted on that stake? The answer would be that sentence which you think would have been written there; that's all. You have never given me that sentence, so you have never given me that answer. If you still do not agree with my understanding, then I would really appreciate your telling me just where it was that you gave me that direct and precise answer in the form of the sentence that you think had been written on that sign, please.
03Cobra san, thanks for your answer there. I think that it does make a big difference however. It is important to remember that it is not a single book--that is also something that man has done, collect it all together so that it mimics a single book, but in reality it's not.
I disagree on the concept involved in the third paragraph due to the concept involved in the second--again, the total of detail makes the whole.
My earlier question about if you had kept a record was an honest question; I wanted to know and compare, and possibly learn. In the 'biblical texts' thread, which I saw as being a support for this one, I have only started off, there is quite a bit more of looking at it all from the eyes of those of that day, as well as from the eyes of the test of time and reason, outside of first believing.
Please, please, Pararousia, try to understand, I had asked you for an answer to that question, in full trust that you would be willing to answer it. I don't think it was misleading in wording so as to cause you to not understand that I wanted the sentence that you thought would have been there from among the choices that we have. Please fulfill my trust here, please. Thank you. :bow:
Pararousia, my glove has been thrown in. I have proof in the posts in the forum and in my PM box that say that you never actually answered that question which I had asked you in my #73, on page three. In your #99 post, also on this thread, you seemed to have copied the texts given by Tsuyoiko which simply gave each rendering that one would find from the several narratives--which cannot, by any means all be true history. I had asked you, simply, what you had thought had been written on that placque. I again brought up that point and attempted to clarify it in a mild, and polite way. In your post #136 on this thread, you wrote, and I quote, "...and, in particular, to a reply regarding the signs on the cross, even though I've answered this a couple of times in previous posts, I'm not verbose so maybe previously I have not been crystal clear or thorough enough. I'll try again." Then you went into a quote from someone else about what inerrancy of the Bible means. And I simply could not find where you answered with what you had thought had been written on that sign--and it was a single sign, not several "signs" .
Of course, I cannot force you to answer, and will hold no hard feelings whatsoever if you continue to dodge answering directly and precisely to the question which was, again, in looking at the possible choices, what do you think had been written on that sign that had supposedly been posted on that stake? The answer would be that sentence which you think would have been written there; that's all. You have never given me that sentence, so you have never given me that answer. If you still do not agree with my understanding, then I would really appreciate your telling me just where it was that you gave me that direct and precise answer in the form of the sentence that you think had been written on that sign, please.
03Cobra san, thanks for your answer there. I think that it does make a big difference however. It is important to remember that it is not a single book--that is also something that man has done, collect it all together so that it mimics a single book, but in reality it's not.
I disagree on the concept involved in the third paragraph due to the concept involved in the second--again, the total of detail makes the whole.
My earlier question about if you had kept a record was an honest question; I wanted to know and compare, and possibly learn. In the 'biblical texts' thread, which I saw as being a support for this one, I have only started off, there is quite a bit more of looking at it all from the eyes of those of that day, as well as from the eyes of the test of time and reason, outside of first believing.
Please, please, Pararousia, try to understand, I had asked you for an answer to that question, in full trust that you would be willing to answer it. I don't think it was misleading in wording so as to cause you to not understand that I wanted the sentence that you thought would have been there from among the choices that we have. Please fulfill my trust here, please. Thank you. :bow:
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
Double post dude.
I think in some way that a disbelief in God or belief in God is instilled into people at a very young age and depends on how it has been enforced through your childhood. Non-belief in God came very easily to me at about 15-16 years old. My family isn't very religious and the concept of God was watching over me was never enforced on me (prehaps enforced might be too strong a word, but I still use it). When I was 12 I started to question religion and, witha group of friends at school looked into Satan, typical teenager stuff really. It struck me that this was just as pointless as God. It was then I started to really question religion in general. Nowadays I happily class myself as an atheist and have no problems with it. my speech will still be littered with phrases such as "Thank God", but these are patterns of pspeech rather than belief.
I know some people are driven into non-belief by a very religious upbringing. A rebellion to their strict parents. Some do return, but others can be very scornful of God in whole. Whether deep down they still believe is something only they know. I am very much into letting people find their own way. It reminds me of a girl I know. She was raised in a faily strict Catholic family. At 14 she started to question her faith and looked to Wicca. Her cousin, a buddhist, thought she would go into being a Goth. She was having a crisis of faith and told me about her problem. My advice was to read about all religions and see what she thought was the right way for her. I might be an atheist, but I think everyone must find their own way to live.
I think in some way that a disbelief in God or belief in God is instilled into people at a very young age and depends on how it has been enforced through your childhood. Non-belief in God came very easily to me at about 15-16 years old. My family isn't very religious and the concept of God was watching over me was never enforced on me (prehaps enforced might be too strong a word, but I still use it). When I was 12 I started to question religion and, witha group of friends at school looked into Satan, typical teenager stuff really. It struck me that this was just as pointless as God. It was then I started to really question religion in general. Nowadays I happily class myself as an atheist and have no problems with it. my speech will still be littered with phrases such as "Thank God", but these are patterns of pspeech rather than belief.
I know some people are driven into non-belief by a very religious upbringing. A rebellion to their strict parents. Some do return, but others can be very scornful of God in whole. Whether deep down they still believe is something only they know. I am very much into letting people find their own way. It reminds me of a girl I know. She was raised in a faily strict Catholic family. At 14 she started to question her faith and looked to Wicca. Her cousin, a buddhist, thought she would go into being a Goth. She was having a crisis of faith and told me about her problem. My advice was to read about all religions and see what she thought was the right way for her. I might be an atheist, but I think everyone must find their own way to live.
Disclamer
Please do forgive me! It was an honest mistake. I have made note of it on the 'rant' thread, and in the past hinted at it on one earlier post in this thread (#100). When using my son's PC here at the house, strange things happen from time to time. Last night I entered a post, and the machine stalled, or froze. . .I have no idea what happened. . . and it really appeared to me that the 'submit' had not worked, and I couldn't get out of that frame. I decided to push it once more because in the past that had unfrozen the frame and I had gotten notice from the main that it was a double post, and thus obviously had not been accepted. I had taaken an educated guess that that would have happened again. I guess it didn't. I closed down explorer, and went back on line, just looking at the basic forum page because it was late, noticed my post had made it by the title being given there (I didn't open it up) and went on to bed.
It was an honest mistake and I am sorry for the inconvenience. :gomen:
I will try to post from the uni more, but from time to time will post from home, and it may, just may happen again, but next time I will take the time to open the thread up to correct for possible double posts. Thanks for noticing it. :relief:
Please do forgive me! It was an honest mistake. I have made note of it on the 'rant' thread, and in the past hinted at it on one earlier post in this thread (#100). When using my son's PC here at the house, strange things happen from time to time. Last night I entered a post, and the machine stalled, or froze. . .I have no idea what happened. . . and it really appeared to me that the 'submit' had not worked, and I couldn't get out of that frame. I decided to push it once more because in the past that had unfrozen the frame and I had gotten notice from the main that it was a double post, and thus obviously had not been accepted. I had taaken an educated guess that that would have happened again. I guess it didn't. I closed down explorer, and went back on line, just looking at the basic forum page because it was late, noticed my post had made it by the title being given there (I didn't open it up) and went on to bed.
It was an honest mistake and I am sorry for the inconvenience. :gomen:
I will try to post from the uni more, but from time to time will post from home, and it may, just may happen again, but next time I will take the time to open the thread up to correct for possible double posts. Thanks for noticing it. :relief:
Void
Regular Member
just remembered the phrase of K.Prutkov
"We don`t understand some things not because of weaknesses of our conceptions, but because these things are not within the scope of our concepts"
"We don`t understand some things not because of weaknesses of our conceptions, but because these things are not within the scope of our concepts"
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
No worries, Mars man. Next time just PM one of the moderators, they can remove it 
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
Final Answer
OK, pay attention--here it is in one and two syllable words for ya I believe what all four gospel writers said was on the sign. I do not agree with you. See photo.
Mars Man said:
OK, pay attention--here it is in one and two syllable words for ya
I believe what all four gospel writers said was on the sign. I do not agree with you. See photo.Thank you for answering the question, Pararousia, in a straight forward manner. I am satisfied that you have answered, and will only point out the following since it is, after all, rather old now. I only wish you had answered it when I had asked, in this same precise and direct way.
Thanks for the sign, it was kind of cute. It is interesting how the artist rendered it, in the three languages. The Greek is Mt. 27:37, as per the Greek text. The Latin gives that of the writers of John, as does the Hebrew too. The rendering given by Mark is not reasonable, except for human error, and that given by Luke, cannot be held to the letter of the Greek--unless we attribute the difference to human error. This is a fact. At the same time, it is impossible to know if the Latin was not simply translated into the Greek and Hebrew, rather than whole new sentences written out. It is convenient for those who wish to maintain unity of the different claims, to suggest that there were three different sentences (the drawing sent only had two) on that board, but that is merely conjecture. All four claims, are claims to know, and in the minds of the speakers of Aramaic, we'd have to think that that sentence would have stood out in the minds of the remembers, and would have been passed on, but it was simply forgotten--it adds up as being strange to think the information had come from a mind that never forgets anything whatsoever.
Thank you for answering, really, and I hope you will keep up that good quality as time goes on.
Thanks for the sign, it was kind of cute. It is interesting how the artist rendered it, in the three languages. The Greek is Mt. 27:37, as per the Greek text. The Latin gives that of the writers of John, as does the Hebrew too. The rendering given by Mark is not reasonable, except for human error, and that given by Luke, cannot be held to the letter of the Greek--unless we attribute the difference to human error. This is a fact. At the same time, it is impossible to know if the Latin was not simply translated into the Greek and Hebrew, rather than whole new sentences written out. It is convenient for those who wish to maintain unity of the different claims, to suggest that there were three different sentences (the drawing sent only had two) on that board, but that is merely conjecture. All four claims, are claims to know, and in the minds of the speakers of Aramaic, we'd have to think that that sentence would have stood out in the minds of the remembers, and would have been passed on, but it was simply forgotten--it adds up as being strange to think the information had come from a mind that never forgets anything whatsoever.
Thank you for answering, really, and I hope you will keep up that good quality as time goes on.
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
Odd the photo I see has 3 lines of writing. Latin, Greek and Hebrew.
working from home tonight; this is my fourth attempt to send this.
Sorry Pararousia, I didn't word that so well. I had been talking about those three lines, as is obvious, then went into the claims by the writer of Mark and Luke. Sorry for the confusion.
I also noticed that I'd forgotten to mention the intention inherent in John 19:19-22, but it's o.k., it's old now. I hope this helps.
Sorry Pararousia, I didn't word that so well. I had been talking about those three lines, as is obvious, then went into the claims by the writer of Mark and Luke. Sorry for the confusion.
I also noticed that I'd forgotten to mention the intention inherent in John 19:19-22, but it's o.k., it's old now. I hope this helps.
studyonline
?Ȃ???
Mycernius said:
Generally I would say "yes". Simply, our environments, friends, or people around us can certainly influence us in many ways as we grow. The earlier they start to influence on you, the bigger the effects are.
But in my case, I grew up in Japan with non-believer family members + local traditional belief and superstitious practices. Logically, it made more sence for me to believe and follow what my parents or grandparents believed. But there was an opportunity for me to know about Jesus. No one forced. It was my will and decision to believe God, and I was only 12.
Notice that no one is born to be a Christian as if he/she could automatically start the life with the belief. It is our free will to make a choice. But that's not the only element for anyone to be able to believe God.
The Bible says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." Without this gift from God, basically no one can believe Him. It is not by any sort of human struggle or effort. Even though having faith seems to be a matter of human effort or dedication, the reality is that it must be given by God. It's a combination/interaction of human will to receive a divine gift from heaven.
Normally when any human attempts to believe God, he will try to "understand" the Bible or God. Since he has not received the gift (faith), the only thing he can do is to use his brain, past experiences, books, people's opinions, history, languages, and other tools in order to grasp what seems logical to him.
Some people think they are Christian just because they "agree" on what the Bible says or "like" the idea/concept of the teachings or just because they go to church sometimes. Those people actually do not have faith nor believe God in the manner the Bible teaches. They may know about God, but they do not know God. No relationship with Him.
People who want to know the truth need faith first in order to grasp what the truth really is. It is not logical at all, but faith itself is inevitable element to know the truth. Whenever there is a discussion on the truthfulness of the Bible, sooner or later we will always discover "faith" is the very thing to draw the line between believers and non-believers. It is not a mere different point of view or different way of interpretation of the Bible, nor educational differences or people's backgrounds. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Heb 11:1 -
Mycernius said:
Most of the people do, and they all hold onto their faith even though they may not realize they have faith. Their faith can be their education, money, reputation, fame, job, self, or any other things humans tend to be proud of. (sometimes they put their faith on drugs or alchohol though) It can be a faith on this and that religion, too. In my case, the faith was given and is in Jesus. People simply can not live with 0 faith. You actually believe that you are an atheist, that is your faith and you live according to that.
The next almost immediate and automatic question is "what if what you believe is wrong?" It's again about the truth isn't it? Remember that I chose my way to live. It means that I can walk away and quit being Christian at any time as my free will operates that way. Even at this very moment I have a choice. God didn't make us like robots, and He graciously honors our free will even when we choose a wrong way. So if there is "another" way for me to find the truth without believing in God, I will attempt and start looking for it. What would be another way though? Is it our brain that can comprehend what the truth is? (not my brain!) There are lots of teachings, philosophies, beliefs in this world. They often provide somewhat logical and seemingly healthy information for anyone to like or believe...without letting you know if it's true or not. (like a TV commercial)
The Bible talks about the truthfulness of itself and God, or the truth itself.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life" - John 14:6 -
Once God opened my heart and spiritual eyes, I could see things that I couldn't before. I think all true Christians can agree to that. Then the next verse becomes real.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
Did my journey to find the truth end? Yes. Do I know all the truth then? No. I'm in the process now as God teaches me and grows me daily in this spiritual relationship. "How do you know it's true?" I can tell you about it, but convincing is another issue. Nothing or no one can do that except God. Those who haven't found it can not know this naturally. So they will keep asking, questioning on anything with what-if's. Some say, "I tried it and didn't work". Well, it's because "you" tried it and naturally failed. There is only one way. Let God do it.
Good morning studyonline,
It really looks to me as thought you are using two different definitions of 'faith' there after you give examples of, for example, faith in money, etc.
The faith which you are firstly talking about is essentially blind faith, although there is no dissimilarity in the usual first given definition of the word 'faith' and that of 'blind faith' in many dictionaries--the one I usually use has them like that. The faith that you were firstly talking about doesn't need evidence, not does it need to 'think things out'.
But there is error in that conclusion in that you have to understand the Bible before you can understand, and thus give any explanation about what Jesus or God is like, according to those writers, or understand what it is that they claim one must believe, and in essence, simply, what those writers believed. This IMHO is a fact. Did you wake up one morning and have all that knowledge in your head, recieved by some miracle? or did you first study the Bible through someone who was teaching you and introducing you to the faith?
It really looks to me as thought you are using two different definitions of 'faith' there after you give examples of, for example, faith in money, etc.
The faith which you are firstly talking about is essentially blind faith, although there is no dissimilarity in the usual first given definition of the word 'faith' and that of 'blind faith' in many dictionaries--the one I usually use has them like that. The faith that you were firstly talking about doesn't need evidence, not does it need to 'think things out'.
But there is error in that conclusion in that you have to understand the Bible before you can understand, and thus give any explanation about what Jesus or God is like, according to those writers, or understand what it is that they claim one must believe, and in essence, simply, what those writers believed. This IMHO is a fact. Did you wake up one morning and have all that knowledge in your head, recieved by some miracle? or did you first study the Bible through someone who was teaching you and introducing you to the faith?
Mars Man wrote concerning my previous post:
"03Cobra san, thanks for your answer there. I think that it does make a big difference however. It is important to remember that it is not a single book--that is also something that man has done, collect it all together so that it mimics a single book, but in reality it's not.
I disagree on the concept involved in the third paragraph due to the concept involved in the second--again, the total of detail makes the whole."
I agree the Bible is a combination of different books by different authors. I also agree the common practice of many in the Christian church to treat them as one book is not really consistent. They are one canon -- list of books from the early church valuable for reading and studying and learning about God.
My third paragraph says that people can accept Christ and live for God despite the findings of my second paragraph, that the men (and possibly women) who write down the events of God's revelation through His prophets and Jesus Christ were not perfect and may have gotten a few details wrong.
Mars Man, I think you are essentially saying that you can accept nothing from the Bible because there are a few minor errors in it. I wonder if you would still hold that opinion if you had not been taught the doctrine of inerrancy many years ago. If the gospel had been presented apart from the view that the Bible is free of errors, could you have still accepted it? Was perfection of the source documents necessary to believing any of the message?
I found the errors and took a different approach, maintaining my faith in God and eliminating my faith in man's doctrine of inerrancy.
"03Cobra san, thanks for your answer there. I think that it does make a big difference however. It is important to remember that it is not a single book--that is also something that man has done, collect it all together so that it mimics a single book, but in reality it's not.
I disagree on the concept involved in the third paragraph due to the concept involved in the second--again, the total of detail makes the whole."
I agree the Bible is a combination of different books by different authors. I also agree the common practice of many in the Christian church to treat them as one book is not really consistent. They are one canon -- list of books from the early church valuable for reading and studying and learning about God.
My third paragraph says that people can accept Christ and live for God despite the findings of my second paragraph, that the men (and possibly women) who write down the events of God's revelation through His prophets and Jesus Christ were not perfect and may have gotten a few details wrong.
Mars Man, I think you are essentially saying that you can accept nothing from the Bible because there are a few minor errors in it. I wonder if you would still hold that opinion if you had not been taught the doctrine of inerrancy many years ago. If the gospel had been presented apart from the view that the Bible is free of errors, could you have still accepted it? Was perfection of the source documents necessary to believing any of the message?
I found the errors and took a different approach, maintaining my faith in God and eliminating my faith in man's doctrine of inerrancy.
studyonline
?Ȃ???
Mars Man said:
It's about time to talk about miracles! Yes, it is a miracle of God. And only those who actually experienced know it. It's beyond any human language to describe the power of God.
I never said I knew "all". However, yes I received an insight, deeper understanding, as well as knowledge I didn't use to have. It was not by any man or book or anything. Not from earthly resources.
I have mentioned that I do not ignore the intellectual part as a human being like you are. But that is still a part of me to know "some" stuff. Not "all things".
This is where spiritual eyes come in. Only God can open the eyes to let you understand the mysteries of God.
"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." - 2Cor 3:6 -
To some, reading the Bible can be reading just like another book. A matter of reading the letters written. But the Spirit of God gives what's written life. That's the only way to understand what the Bible says to us. Not a matter of language game. I opened the thread to share the things I experienced (supernatural) with others. I hope that will interest you to know God rather than "about God."
Please do forgive me for not gettin back so timely; I'm sorry.
03Cobra, again, you have brought out a good question, one that I greatly appreciate--like that last one. (which I know could still use some clarification, but would cause me, I feel, to have to jump ahead of the presentation I have laid out) [*in the event that it hadn't been gleened from earlier posts of mine on different threads, as such, I am presenting what I have already written, basically, not that I am doing this as I come to it, so to speak.]
Firstly to get back to comments on your #179 (this page) which you highlighted in your most recent #195. I agree that it would correct to say that any single error invalidates the doctrine of 'infallacy'--wrong in one, wrong in all ! is the old Latin maxim. It is not the case, however, that I had stumbled onto this matter in any effort to disprove that idea--which, as I take it, had been the same in your case, right? I think that where our understandings don't concur at the moment, is the degree of error that is involved in all this. I have found it to be considerably large--it's just that I am pointing that out in a slow, meticulous way, through the vehicle of common sense reasoning; and with conclusions suspended until all the evidence and reasoning is in.
At the moment I would say that it cannot yet be claimed that we know that any mind, or personage, if you will, that at the same time would be held to having created all that there is, has ever communicated or revealed anything about any such 'being', 'purspose', and or 'desire' for human and animal behavior, to any animal--including humankind.
As for the question you framed, I would of course answer that it could have been different if such circumstances had been the case. If I could have accepted it would of course have been from such standpoint of knowledge at the time, and so, as a hypothetical matter, maybe yes, maybe no...but the knowledge I have now, would not have lead to such a course; I know. The degree of believability of any claim document is firstly to be seen within the contents and communicated claims of that document itself, then tested against nature--the main of this being time itself.
Gotta run now. I had hoped to get back to you studyonline, I will tomorrow, I promise. See you all later !!
03Cobra, again, you have brought out a good question, one that I greatly appreciate--like that last one. (which I know could still use some clarification, but would cause me, I feel, to have to jump ahead of the presentation I have laid out) [*in the event that it hadn't been gleened from earlier posts of mine on different threads, as such, I am presenting what I have already written, basically, not that I am doing this as I come to it, so to speak.]
Firstly to get back to comments on your #179 (this page) which you highlighted in your most recent #195. I agree that it would correct to say that any single error invalidates the doctrine of 'infallacy'--wrong in one, wrong in all ! is the old Latin maxim. It is not the case, however, that I had stumbled onto this matter in any effort to disprove that idea--which, as I take it, had been the same in your case, right? I think that where our understandings don't concur at the moment, is the degree of error that is involved in all this. I have found it to be considerably large--it's just that I am pointing that out in a slow, meticulous way, through the vehicle of common sense reasoning; and with conclusions suspended until all the evidence and reasoning is in.
At the moment I would say that it cannot yet be claimed that we know that any mind, or personage, if you will, that at the same time would be held to having created all that there is, has ever communicated or revealed anything about any such 'being', 'purspose', and or 'desire' for human and animal behavior, to any animal--including humankind.
As for the question you framed, I would of course answer that it could have been different if such circumstances had been the case. If I could have accepted it would of course have been from such standpoint of knowledge at the time, and so, as a hypothetical matter, maybe yes, maybe no...but the knowledge I have now, would not have lead to such a course; I know. The degree of believability of any claim document is firstly to be seen within the contents and communicated claims of that document itself, then tested against nature--the main of this being time itself.
Gotta run now. I had hoped to get back to you studyonline, I will tomorrow, I promise. See you all later !!
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
studyonline said:
I'm STILL praying that God will do a SUPERNATURAL work in those of you who can't understand the mysteries of God.
And, amen to you, brother "studyonline".
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
Pararousia said:I'm STILL praying that God will do a SUPERNATURAL work in those of you who can't understand the mysteries of God.
Supernatural is just something we cannot explain yet. Remember thunder and lightning were once seen as supernatural, as was disease.
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
Mycernius said:
Perhaps we have a conflict of definitions again. Would you consider a miracle as "something we cannot explain yet"? I forget and use words common to me loosely when I shouldn't on this forum. Let me rephrase my statement above... I will continue to pray for a MIRACLE of God's grace to transform those who have yet to understand the mysteries of God and His love for us.
"A true miracle is an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38).
It is an occurrence at once above nature and above man. It shows the intervention of a power that is not limited by the laws either of matter or of mind, a power interrupting the fixed laws which govern their movements, a supernatural power.
"The suspension or violation of the laws of nature involved in miracles is nothing more than is constantly taking place around us. One force counteracts another: vital force keeps the chemical laws of matter in abeyance; and muscular force can control the action of physical force. When a man raises a weight from the ground, the law of gravity is neither suspended nor violated, but counteracted by a stronger force. The same is true as to the walking of Christ on the water and the swimming of iron at the command of the prophet.
The simple and grand truth that the universe is not under the exclusive control of physical forces, but that everywhere and always there is above, separate from and superior to all else, an infinite personal will, not superseding, but directing and controlling all physical causes, acting with or without them."
God ordinarily effects his purpose through the agency of second causes; but he has the power also of effecting his purpose immediately and without the intervention of second causes, i.e., of invading the fixed order, and thus of working miracles. Thus we affirm the possibility of miracles, the possibility of a higher hand intervening to control or reverse nature's ordinary movements.
In the New Testament these four Greek words are principally used to designate miracles:
1.Semeion, a "sign", i.e., an evidence of a divine commission; an attestation of a divine message (Matt. 12:38,39; 16:1, 4; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; 23:8; John 2:11, 18, 23; Acts 6:8, etc.); a token of the presence and working of God; the seal of a higher power.
2.Terata, "wonders;" wonder-causing events; portents; producing astonishment in the beholder (Acts 2:19).
3. Dunameis, "might works;" works of superhuman power (Acts 2:22; Rom. 15:19; 2 Thess. 2:9); of a new and higher power.
4.Erga, "works;" the works of Him who is "wonderful in working" (John 5:20, 36).
Miracles are seals of a divine mission. The sacred writers appealed to them as proofs that they were messengers of God. Our Lord also appealed to miracles as a conclusive proof of his divine mission (John 5:20, 36; 10:25, 38). Thus, being out of the common course of nature and beyond the power of man, they are fitted to convey the impression of the presence and power of God.
Where miracles are there certainly God is. The man, therefore, who works a miracle affords thereby clear proof that he comes with the authority of God; they are his credentials that he is God's messenger. The teacher points to these credentials, and they are a proof that he speaks with the authority of God. He boldly says, "God bears me witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles."
The credibility of miracles is established by the evidence of the senses on the part of those who are witnesses of them, and to all others by the testimony of such witnesses. The witnesses were competent, and their testimony is trustworthy. Unbelievers, following Hume, deny that any testimony can prove a miracle, because they say miracles are impossible. We have shown that miracles are possible, and surely they can be borne witness to. Surely they are credible when we have abundant and trustworthy evidence of their occurrence. They are credible just as any facts of history well authenticated are credible.
Miracles, it is said, are contrary to experience. Of course they are contrary to our experience, but that does not prove that they were contrary to the experience of those who witnessed them. We believe a thousand facts, both of history and of science, that are contrary to our experience, but we believe them on the ground of competent testimony.
An atheist or a pantheist must, as a matter of course, deny the possibility of miracles; but to one who believes in a personal God, who in his wisdom may see fit to interfere with the ordinary processes of nature, miracles are not impossible, nor are they incredible."
Author: Matthew G. Easton.