Misconceptions of Christianity

[Tiribulus]

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Then you did not understand what you read.

[Edit] I should not have left it at that. I don’t want to get into a scripture pasting contest. But God gives plenty of “outs” in scripture to. Those of us who have been given the faith have the most demanded of us. He did not create man to condemn them.[/quote]Emphasis mine.
I am asking you sincerely what you mean by this. I honestly don’t understand.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao. >>>[/quote]Romans 1:18-20:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

[pat]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Then you did not understand what you read.

[Edit] I should not have left it at that. I don’t want to get into a scripture pasting contest. But God gives plenty of “outs” in scripture to. Those of us who have been given the faith have the most demanded of us. He did not create man to condemn them.[/quote]Emphasis mine.
I am asking you sincerely what you mean by this. I honestly don’t understand.[/quote]

There is the requisite rigidity in scripture, but then there is plenty of fluidity as well. The laws are for the people not God. For instance, let’s look at circumcision. Why was that a law. Well foreskin is a disease trap, for the literal unwashed masses it’s a problem. Why on the 8th day after birth? That’s the day the human clotting factors are the highest, hence the munchkin won’t bleed to death after butchering his penis. The ten commandments, general rules to live by. Almost like a Marineâ??s theme itâ??s broken down to God, family, neighbor.

Jesus, how is he present? In the least of his people. You can know him through the least of his people, even if not by name. Who are Jesusâ??s family? Those who do the will of God.
Paul states even who by nature do the will of God with out being knowing the word are also righteous, but those who know the word are held accountable to the word.

Hope that clears up what I am saying. There is more to God then law or the scriptures.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao. >>>[/quote]Romans 1:18-20:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”[/quote]

you got it

[pat]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao. >>>[/quote]Romans 1:18-20:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”[/quote]

you got it[/quote]
Yup. There are no excuses for being a dick save for illness.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.[/quote]

Ahh . . . . the classic misrepresentation of the creationsit viewpoint . . . sad

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

St. Aquinas wrote:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence â?? which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.” This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

A page out of Summa Theologica if anyone wants some logic and God’s existence. I’ll be here all night, okay kidding. I am actually going to bed or I would have put these into simpler words (possibly, I do not assume to be more simple than Aquinas, but try).[/quote]

That page whilst nicely written says nothing more than ‘I don’t understand why things are the way they are, therefore I believe in God.’ It is not proof, it is not evidence, it is a failure to delve deeeper into the meaning of things, it is giving up at a certain point in your understanding of the universe and saying ‘God did it’.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

That page whilst nicely written says nothing more than ‘I don’t understand why things are the way they are, therefore I believe in God.’ It is not proof, it is not evidence, it is a failure to delve deeeper into the meaning of things, it is giving up at a certain point in your understanding of the universe and saying ‘God did it’.[/quote]

the classic misrepresentation of creationism repeated . . .

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
And going along with the logical argument for God:

Why can we say God has always existed, but not use the same logic and say the universe has always existed?[/quote]

Because the universe is caused. To say the causal chain breaks down infinitely begs the question and is logically impossible.
[/quote]

Then why can’t God be caused? I’m interested in the logical argument for why one thing can be caused, but not the other. [/quote]

What the cosmological arguments argues is that casual relationships regress ultimately to an uncaused-cause. To avoid circular reasoning, you must have something that can cause with out itself being caused. Since what we call “God” also contains the property of being an uncaused-cause, He, by definition cannot be caused by anything else. If he were he would be a caused causer, just like everything else in the universe…[/quote]

Or otherwise put it is a cop out. God of the gaps but with longer words.[/quote]

You’re going to have to go ahead and back that up with something. The cosmological argument has existed for over 2 millenniums, stand yet unrefuted. If you have the refutation to it, by God let’s here it.[/quote]

No, the argument has been refuted repeatedly, in fact it is not even an argument.

The cosmological argument boils down to ‘I have reached a level at which I no longer understand the explanation for what I observe and have decided to give up looking and insert God.’ A few hundred years ago, people like you would have been pointing to the sun in the sky and saying it was proof of a god’s existence as otherwise what made it rise each morning.

The problem is that on one side you have a group of people who are willing to believe things on faith with no evidence, they are arguing against a group of people who demand evidence for something that basically cannot be proved.

You end up with a stalemate where both sides declare themselves the winner.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< There is the requisite rigidity in scripture, but then there is plenty of fluidity as well. The laws are for the people not God. For instance, let’s look at circumcision. Why was that a law. Well foreskin is a disease trap, for the literal unwashed masses it’s a problem. Why on the 8th day after birth? That’s the day the human clotting factors are the highest, hence the munchkin won’t bleed to death after butchering his penis. The ten commandments, general rules to live by. Almost like a Marineâ??s theme itâ??s broken down to God, family, neighbor.

Jesus, how is he present? In the least of his people. You can know him through the least of his people, even if not by name. Who are Jesusâ??s family? Those who do the will of God.
Paul states even who by nature do the will of God with out being knowing the word are also righteous, but those who know the word are held accountable to the word.

Hope that clears up what I am saying. There is more to God then law or the scriptures. [/quote]
Again emphasis mine. Paul’s statement in the 2nd of Romans which you have here inaccurately cited actually teaches the opposite of what you say. His point was, being without excuse due to the general revelation present both in man himself and the universe at large, pagans are held accountable on that basis. He also credits any external good done by them to this principle. (in short)

If forced to choose one book in the entire bible to avoid when attempting to establish that the works of any law suffice before God apart from a resurrected relationship with Jesus Christ by grace through deliberate self conscious faith, Paul’s epistle to the Roman’s is it. That letter is specifically written largely as an atomic bomb against that very thing with probably Ephesians and Galatians coming next.

Lemme just get this outta the way. If you do not have a literal first man created directly by God Himself in His image and whose first sin plunged mankind into eternal death, not only is the bible a lie, but Jesus of Nazareth was the THE biggest and most successful fraud bar none in the history of planet earth. There is no middle ground. He did not leave us any.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Time is a human construct though. Relatively this conversation could have taken an infinite amount of time.[/quote]

Uh no. Our usage of time is a human construct, however time is a measurement of relative movements. As long as there is relative movement time exists…Unless of course you claim to have been traveling at the speed of light when you typed your statement. Then you could claim you constructed your statement in zero time.[/quote]

Actually if you model the universe using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation time is just a gauge transformation. It is irrelevant. We perceive time to be a constant and we measure its passage but really time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
On another note, can anyone here define what God actually is?

If so, how did you come to this conclusion?[/quote]

Oh, I love this question.

God is and is not the Tao

Seriously, I came to Christianity via studying the Tao. In seeking to understand the Tao, I discovered the nature/reality of God separate from the revealed truth of the Bible, but in the revealed truth of the Bible I discovered the character of God. The character of God as revealed in the Bible matched the nature of the Divine that I found in the Tao.

Remember God’s statement, “I am” . . . there is so much packed into those two words when understood from a Daoist perspective.[/quote]

But any way that claims to be the ultimate way cannot be the true way. So your God by stating that he is surely proves that he isn’t.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Then you did not understand what you read.

[Edit] I should not have left it at that. I don’t want to get into a scripture pasting contest. But God gives plenty of “outs” in scripture to. Those of us who have been given the faith have the most demanded of us. He did not create man to condemn them.[/quote]Emphasis mine.
I am asking you sincerely what you mean by this. I honestly don’t understand.[/quote]

There is the requisite rigidity in scripture, but then there is plenty of fluidity as well. The laws are for the people not God. For instance, let’s look at circumcision. Why was that a law. Well foreskin is a disease trap, for the literal unwashed masses it’s a problem. Why on the 8th day after birth? That’s the day the human clotting factors are the highest, hence the munchkin won’t bleed to death after butchering his penis. The ten commandments, general rules to live by. Almost like a Marineâ??s theme itâ??s broken down to God, family, neighbor.

Jesus, how is he present? In the least of his people. You can know him through the least of his people, even if not by name. Who are Jesusâ??s family? Those who do the will of God.
Paul states even who by nature do the will of God with out being knowing the word are also righteous, but those who know the word are held accountable to the word.

Hope that clears up what I am saying. There is more to God then law or the scriptures. [/quote]

It’s almost as if the Bible is just a collection of handed down stories and ideas about how to interpret the world and advice on how to get on with each other…

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.[/quote]

Ahh . . . . the classic misrepresentation of the creationsit viewpoint . . . sad
[/quote]

Please explain.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.[/quote]
Wikipedia is great you know. “In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10^â??36 seconds <|{[(AFTER)]}|> the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand.” This still doesn’t change the strong evidence for and that the Big Bang began from a singularity with no time, space etc… Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.[/quote]
Wikipedia is great you know. “In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10^Ã?¢??36 seconds <|{[(AFTER)]}|> the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand.” This still doesn’t change the strong evidence for and that the Big Bang began from a singularity with no time, space etc… Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia
[/quote]

Wikipedia is great, 4 years and university studying quantum theory is better

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

Chuck Norris Super Kick - YouTube I win =P.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I know what inflation theory is, inflation only affects what happens after the big bang so I don’t see the relevance of your post.[/quote]

Nope, the inflation theory actually posits that what we regard as the big bang is a localised inflation event within a larger multiverse therefore the whole concept of the big bang being the beginning of everything and there needing to be a prime causer is incorrect.

Of course all that it actually does is moves the question onto a larger plane, where did the multiverse come from and what caused it but it again points out saying God did it makes no more sense for the origin of the universe than it does for the sun’s passage through the sky.[/quote]

Ahh . . . . the classic misrepresentation of the creationsit viewpoint . . . sad
[/quote]

Please explain.[/quote]

gladly . . . the classic misrepresentation is that belief in a cretor precludes any scientific inquiry. This is not true - as I have pointed out in great detail in other threads - many of the greatest scientific minds have been Christians.

The belief in a creator does no negate the desire for and need to understand the mechanisms by which He created or the naturals laws he upholds for the continual existence of the universe. Indeed, in order to understand the Divine better, we enthusiastically seek better and better understanding of the mechanisms and laws of the universe.

The very basis of the scientific method was established by religious scientists. Most of the great scientific discoveries have been made by creationsits. We are not only supportive of scienctific inquiry, but its greatest proponents.

The only thing that a creationist view point adds to the process of scientific discovery is an acknowledgment of the ultimate cause for and continuation of the existence of the universe - that’s it. This belief does not mean we excuse shoddy science, accept things at face value or ignore evidence - it merely allows us a foundation on which to build our world view.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Chuck Norris Super Kick - YouTube I win =P.[/quote]

With Chuck Norris videos everyone wins