Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 156 of 156

Thread: Christian Apologetics

  1. #151
    Member AntisocialENTP's Avatar
    Type
    XNTP
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    In the UP (Upper Peninsala) Michigan, US
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    No disrespect intended. I hang with plenty of Christians. I would caution you that if you feel like your faith is something you need, don't question it too closely. Faith and logic are, in some ways, opposites. If you need proof that god exists, you don't have faith. If you have faith that God exists, you don't need proof, and nothing I say is going to make you question it. Christians who are reasoned thinkers abound...they just make an exception for their religion and call it faith. I'm good with that, even though I think it's completely illogical. So is my love of donuts, but hey, donuts. They make me happy. Sometimes these evolutionary artifacts cannot be escaped.
    I don't need faith. Faith make since to me. Just because you believe that faith and logic are oppositional doesn't actually make it so. I don't need for God to exist. I believe he does but if the universe is a happy (or unhappy) accident that fine with me it doesn't change what I've gone threw in my life and were I am. That being said I find the happy accident theory suspect. I don't need faith, faith is an extension of what I understand to be truth.

    Faith isn't actually that unique to religion either. You have to believe that you are a reasonably intelligent person with deductive and inductive reasoning skill and your observational skill of reality somehow reflect reality. And the same goes for the scientist that have observed evidence you haven't observed yourself. If any of these skills were false. Than logically speaking science Falsifiable and reputability would be mute.

    Me and you both (I assume) have faith in that humans have these capabilities including high educated scientist. There may be times were scientist have falsified information and test result but seems to be weeded out when the results become unrepeatable by future scientist.

    I have Faith is science and Scientific reasoning. It actually really funny to me that I was first introduced to this idea by an Atheist Professor in college during a course in the Philosophy of science. By no mean's to I believe Science is a religion but it is still founded on assumptions that can't be proven which is very interesting and freaky at the same time.

    I might have not have given complete justice to this argument as it was just a simple over view from memory but it was still eye opening to me when I first discovered it.

    This isn't proof or justification of any religion, it's just a interesting explanation of faith in general.

  2. #152
    Member AntisocialENTP's Avatar
    Type
    XNTP
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    In the UP (Upper Peninsala) Michigan, US
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnClay View Post
    Human error explains a few typos but the two genealogies between David and Joseph being completely different suggests at least one of them was invented.


    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/27/53/s_956052
    Well it looks like it at least said they appeared "unto many" ("polys")
    Most translations say "many" people were ressurected so there should be good reasons to think that is a good translation. My point is that I've never heard a Christian bring up this passage.
    Also http://www.giraffeboards.com/showpos...0&postcount=90
    "Interesting story about Licona. He had to resign an academic position because he wrote a book where he suggested that just maybe zombies didn't literally come out of their graves and swarm down into Jerusalem as per Matthew 27:52-53, and that maybe it was apocalyptic imagery instead. A lot of the jobs at Bible colleges require an oath to inerrancy"

    Do you think it really did happen?
    I don't know, I've looked into genealogical research and its not as easy as you might think. And that today with current technology. These guys would have to pour through birth record (which were a thing) simply miss Identifying the first link (which would have been the issue here.) creates completely different genealogies. Or the easiest solution Using Occam's razor, one was to prove Josephs lineage (which really doesn't matter though it might have mattered to that writer) The other Marry's which did matter since she gave birth to Jesus and was his only human parent. Now, I know there is debt here and we gone back in forth on this but its simply what makes the most since.

  3. #153
    Member Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    617
    Quote Originally Posted by AntisocialENTP View Post
    Just because you believe that faith and logic are oppositional doesn't actually make it so.
    Actually, but the very definition of word logic, yes "it" does make it so.

    Can you have faith and be a relatively logical person? Sure, in some cases that is perfectly possible.

    Can you argue the validity of faith via logic, no, you absolutely can not.

    Quote Originally Posted by AntisocialENTP View Post
    You have to believe that you are a reasonably intelligent person with deductive and inductive reasoning skill and your observational skill of reality somehow reflect reality. And the same goes for the scientist that have observed evidence you haven't observed yourself. If any of these skills were false. Than logically speaking science Falsifiable and reputability would be mute.
    I'm about to call Mustafa shenanigans! No part of this statement makes any sense. By the same thought process a tree doesn't fall in the woods if you have never seen that particular tree. A cat and a dog are both bears because each has fur. And Odin certainly rid the world of frost giants because we don't see any frost giants.

    Logic is not confirmation bias.

  4. #154
    Member AntisocialENTP's Avatar
    Type
    XNTP
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    In the UP (Upper Peninsala) Michigan, US
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
    Actually, but the very definition of word logic, yes "it" does make it so.

    Can you have faith and be a relatively logical person? Sure, in some cases that is perfectly possible.

    Can you argue the validity of faith via logic, no, you absolutely can not.



    I'm about to call Mustafa shenanigans! No part of this statement makes any sense. By the same thought process a tree doesn't fall in the woods if you have never seen that particular tree. A cat and a dog are both bears because each has fur. And Odin certainly rid the world of frost giants because we don't see any frost giants.

    Logic is not confirmation bias.
    I wasn't claiming confirmation bias. I that you must have faith in your ability to to empirical evidence (as well as the ability of scientist). This isn't a provable. We all could be flawed the same way genetically and none of us able to reach a valid conclusion on actually reality.

    I will repeat I don't believe this to be the case. I believe we observe reality fairly well and I constantly improving or observational skills. I have faith in the human ability as such. However, it's still faith. Just not faith in something not yet seen. I have faith in way I can observe as real. Its possible this faith is unwanted that is why its still faith.

  5. #155
    Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Faust View Post
    No True Scotsman huh. Any expression of Christianity seems to be distortion given that each is an interpretation, through the lens of bias and desire, of the same source material (more or less, depending on the era), and the mechanics used to arrive at these could be said to be in the same spirit of truth-seeking. I'm not sure your specific experience was even available hundreds of years ago. Either true Christianity means something different depending on each century and place, or it's been lying dormant all this time available to a select few.
    I was mostly trying to be sympathetic. I can freely acknowledge that there are some very bad churches out there and some people can be hurt badly from an encounter with a cult-like Christian church. @Sistamatic said that she has come through her experience relatively unscathed and has also experienced a church without the cult-like additions, which is good to hear.

    I had considered the possibility that she had been turned off Christianity because a negative experience she had but she has made it clear that this was not the case.

    I am not so sure if my type of church experience is only a relatively recent one. The stereotypical church sermon from the 19th century is "fire and brimstone" but I don't know how representative that is. I suspect that there were small independent or semi-independent churches based on spiritual truth and love.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sistamatic View Post
    I know that many Christians feel it is their duty to try to bring people like me to Jesus. If you are angling for that, and you really want to make me believe in the Christian god, then the path to attempt it should be clear. Reasoned logical argument (that does not depend on my a priori acceptance that the bible is divine, or that god exists, and which does not depend on anecdotes (miracles) that cannot be reliably repeated or proven) is the only way. Fear won't work either. I'm not afraid of the boogeymen (wrathful god and/or satan) of my childhood anymore. Kinda hard to scare me with hell if you can't convince me it exists.
    If I do try to bring people to Jesus, I don't require an a priori acceptance that the Bible is divine, that God exists or that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened. However, I wouldn't wouldn't use reasoned logical argument to try to prove to someone that the Bible is divine, that God exists or that the miracles described in the Bible actually happened either.

    Humans are spiritual beings with hearts that can recognise and respond to love and spiritual truth and realising this is the path to God. I'd start by treating the person well according to their unique individual needs to convince them that I genuinely do care for them and have their best interests at heart and allow them to see the purity of my heart. This should make them more willing to listen to and trust the spiritual truth about God, Jesus and the problem of sin that I have to share with them.
    On the wrong side of history

  6. #156
    Too exhausted to even be here in this thread. Humanity. What... the... fuck. Why don't we all just live in caves and worship rocks. Same difference. Prove me wrong on this. You can't.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatloveihave View Post
    I don't find you a potential threat to human society, you're not crazy. Feces.

Similar Threads

  1. Learn Islam from a Non Muslim Female scholar (Christian)
    By Mustafa in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2017, 01:57 PM
  2. JohnClay might become a Christian in real life
    By JohnClay in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-04-2016, 10:51 PM
  3. War Room - popular new Christian movie about prayer
    By JohnClay in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-13-2015, 01:24 AM
  4. Therefore: Love (A Christian Proof)
    By Makers!* in forum Philosophy & Spirituality
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 06-19-2015, 04:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •