Faith and Reason.

[Jones]

I typically avoid threads like this one, because a online forum is not a great venue for human communication, and I can't check this place often enough to be productive in such an active discussion. However, this is a particular topic of interest to me, so I'd like to contribute in some form. Since I'm sure this thread will grow well past my ability to keep up with it, if you have a specific question directed at me, please PM it to me so I can more easily respond.

I'd encourage everyone (especially Neo and Alleya) to view this video of Timothy Keller speaking at Google as a part of the Authors@Google series last year. Dr. Keller is the author of "The Reason for God" and the pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York.

He discusses much of what has been talked about in this thread and covers many of the top "problems" people have with belief in God. This talk is only 1hr long and cannot answer all the questions people will have. Please read the book if you are interested further, it is well written, honest and logical. He tries to keep his lecture to "God in general", not a specific God of a particular religion. As a result, even in the Q&A session, a question that could be addressed from his particular view of Reformed Christianity cannot be answered in terms of "God in general".

One of the trends in this thread has been that religion discourages doubt. I can say that that is false of "Reformed Christians". Doubt is encouraged in my church, because without doubt, no faith can stand up under pressure. Over my teen years and young adulthood I have continually doubted the existence of God, the exclusivity of Christianity, how science and religion can coexist logically, how suffering can exist, and many other theological ideas. It has only been through doubt that a strengthening of my faith exists. My own personal growth over the years is not something that I can present in a single (or multiple) posts, but again, please PM me if you are curious of any of my particular experiences.

Another popular (in my experiences) misconception of "religious people" is that Christians believe that have have a higher moral standing than non-Christians. This is false and quite to the contrary of Christian teaching. One can only become "saved" once they see their need for Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Luke (Luke being a physician) describes it that Jesus came to heal the sick, not the healthy. To put it in other words and borrow a popular cliche, unless you think you are broken, you aren't going to try to be fixed. As such, Christians are broken, messy people who are in no way perfect. The only difference is a Christian acknowledges their continual need of Jesus Christ in order to be justified to God. Every Christian struggles with sin and will never have a higher moral standing than anyone else.

Finally, on a personal note, I'll admit it, the Gospel story of Jesus isn't an easy thing to believe. But it's my belief that God designed it exactly that way for a reason. God doesn't want you to believe in his redemption story of Jesus because you are "smart" and have logically figured it out, because then the glory belongs to you and not Him. I believe that God doesn't want to be "proved to exist" by us. The entire story of the Bible is a story of revealing God's Glory to humanity, which has both happened (in the redemption of sin through Christ) and is still yet to come (God's Kingdom in eternity). As the Westminster Shorter Catechism says in it's opening question:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.


-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~

tldr; Watch the video, read the book, Doubt is ok, Christians suck just as much as everyone else, the Gospel gives God Glory, not you.

-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~

[Kaylia]

even if scientists finally come up with the theory of everything.

Can't happen.

[Alleya]

Can't happen.

It was hypothetical.

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. To Live.

Fixed.

[Jones]

Fixed.

From many viewpoints, "To Live" and to "Glorify God and enjoy Him forever" are one and the same.

[Neosutra]

I typically avoid threads like this one, because a online forum is not a great venue for human communication, and I can't check this place often enough to be productive in such an active discussion. However, this is a particular topic of interest to me, so I'd like to contribute in some form. Since I'm sure this thread will grow well past my ability to keep up with it, if you have a specific question directed at me, please PM it to me so I can more easily respond.

I'd encourage everyone (especially Neo and Alleya) to view this video of Timothy Keller speaking at Google as a part of the Authors@Google series last year. Dr. Keller is the author of "The Reason for God" and the pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York.

He discusses much of what has been talked about in this thread and covers many of the top "problems" people have with belief in God. This talk is only 1hr long and cannot answer all the questions people will have. Please read the book if you are interested further, it is well written, honest and logical. He tries to keep his lecture to "God in general", not a specific God of a particular religion. As a result, even in the Q&A session, a question that could be addressed from his particular view of Reformed Christianity cannot be answered in terms of "God in general".

One of the trends in this thread has been that religion discourages doubt. I can say that that is false of "Reformed Christians". Doubt is encouraged in my church, because without doubt, no faith can stand up under pressure. Over my teen years and young adulthood I have continually doubted the existence of God, the exclusivity of Christianity, how science and religion can coexist logically, how suffering can exist, and many other theological ideas. It has only been through doubt that a strengthening of my faith exists. My own personal growth over the years is not something that I can present in a single (or multiple) posts, but again, please PM me if you are curious of any of my particular experiences.

Another popular (in my experiences) misconception of "religious people" is that Christians believe that have have a higher moral standing than non-Christians. This is false and quite to the contrary of Christian teaching. One can only become "saved" once they see their need for Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Luke (Luke being a physician) describes it that Jesus came to heal the sick, not the healthy. To put it in other words and borrow a popular cliche, unless you think you are broken, you aren't going to try to be fixed. As such, Christians are broken, messy people who are in no way perfect. The only difference is a Christian acknowledges their continual need of Jesus Christ in order to be justified to God. Every Christian struggles with sin and will never have a higher moral standing than anyone else.

Finally, on a personal note, I'll admit it, the Gospel story of Jesus isn't an easy thing to believe. But it's my belief that God designed it exactly that way for a reason. God doesn't want you to believe in his redemption story of Jesus because you are "smart" and have logically figured it out, because then the glory belongs to you and not Him. I believe that God doesn't want to be "proved to exist" by us. The entire story of the Bible is a story of revealing God's Glory to humanity, which has both happened (in the redemption of sin through Christ) and is still yet to come (God's Kingdom in eternity). As the Westminster Shorter Catechism says in it's opening question:

Q. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.


-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~

tldr; Watch the video, read the book, Doubt is ok, Christians suck just as much as everyone else, the Gospel give God Glory, not you.

-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~-=~

The above man does not get around any of the questions we have posed here, he simply uses a less defined version of god to attempt to avoid the responsibility for answering the questions. It is a common tactic among the new aplogetics, as any definition of god thus far has been easily debunked. To you, god simply "is". Unfortunately that doesnt hold up to any examination.

To continue, christians believe they are washed clean of their sins, and thus forgiven and "cleaner" than someone that is not saved. Just because they are brainwashed into thinking everything in their life is a result of god, and all happiness comes from this invisible man, doesnt mean they have any more of the answers. This level of delusion is the most dangerous kind. Do your really think that you can pass an advanced calculus test w/o ever learrning the subject, if you pray realy hard? Hell no, you pass by studying your ass off. Those who study and understand the material pass, those who do not, fail.

As for your questions and answer:

The biological purpose of man is to consume and propagate, to continue our entropic roles as macro-biological assets. The societal or philosophical purpose of man is dependent on the society or the person.

And what kind of perfect being requires his lesser creations to glorify him till the end of time. I didnt realize perfect super beings also had low self esteem.

[Neosutra]

Theory of everything Can't happen.

Yes, actually it can. Personally working on it for 40 hours a week, I would say you are full of shit. Dont misrepresent the same tired math theorems that you posted last time.

[Jones]

To continue, christians believe they are washed clean of their sins, and thus forgiven and "cleaner" than someone that is not saved. Just because they are brainwashed into thinking everything in their life is a result of god, and all happiness comes from this invisible man, doesnt mean they have any more of the answers. This level of delusion is the most dangerous kind. Do your really think that you cant pass an advanced calculus test w/o ever laerning the subject, if you pray realy hard? Hell no, you pass by studying your ass off. Thoe who study and understand the material pass, those who do not, fail.

My last post of the day, but I wanted to comment here.

While certainly some Christians believe what you said here. I do not. I'm not "cleaner" than anyone else. I sin just as much as the next guy, and I'm not better of a person for realizing it. My view is that Jesus died for ALL sins, even for people who don't want it. You choose not to accept the free gift and I do, that's it. I don't live my life brainwashed. Not only does all happiness come from God, but all suffering does as well. Of course I didn't pass Calculus and Diff Eq. by praying, I did study, though God was sovereign over that study and rest the rest of the cosmos for that matter.

[Meian]

Since he is too lazy to make an account, he'll post under mine for this post since he insists:

hey, this is Meian's friend, not Meian himself. There is a difference between a debate over authenticating something to understand the truth and meaning behind certain philosophy, and a debate to argue for arguement sake. When the Pharisees tested Jesus about different philosophical approaches in the application of Jewish law (stuff the Moses instated in the first books of the Bible) they are simply challenging and testing Him, to which Jesus responded by telling them that in short "If the question is asked for testing sake and not spiritual reinforcement, there is no need to entertain these thougts. For you seek prove, which is fundamentally against what it means to believe and know me."

Neither you nor I acquired siminary degrees or are at the archeological sites that proves the authenticity of documentation in the gospels, we lack real evidence to back up anything we say. We can quote and site philosophers and historians all we want, it will conclude the same way because: one, most philosopher writes inductive documents and most historians writes in the paradigm of the culture they are in (hints the article of Nacirema) and the point of Christianity and relationship between God and us are suppose to be established based upon faith, and God is not going to take away from that until the second coming. In another word, the inconclusiveness is a way for one to believe and simply believe, a gift of free will I would say.

In short, we are arguing about the color of the world while being blind and I believe that such debates will not amount to anything for it is written in the Bible that it will not.

Now if you really want the truth, it is written in the Bible that "knock and the door will be open, ask and you shall be given." You should really read the Bible before you challenge it, even in court, when one needs to discredit or disprove, one needs to know the settings and background of what is truely happening.

[Neosutra]

My last post of the day, but I wanted to comment here.

While certainly some Christians believe what you said here. I do not. I'm not "cleaner" than anyone else. I sin just as much as the next guy, and I'm not better of a person for realizing it. My view is that Jesus died for ALL sins, even for people who don't want it. You choose not to accept the free gift and I do, that's it. I don't live my life brainwashed. Not only does all happiness come from God, but all suffering does as well. Of course I didn't pass Calculus and Diff Eq. by praying, I did study, though God was sovereign over that study and rest the rest of the cosmos for that matter.

Why did he have to die for transgressions that HE deemed were sins in the first place.

"Im going to create a species with specific hormones and genetic traits, then tell them everything they do is bad, then torture them forever for it. BUT!!! I will also rape a virgin chick and have a kid, and then torture/kill that kid, so I can finally forgive my creations for all of the shitty things I made them do".

And wow... You are a bit too forgone to be in this discussion to be honest. If you are one of the "everything god does is good, and everything bad god does is just a test, and is thus also good, praise jesus", then you wont be getting much from anything here.

Edit: To Meian's "friend": I was a christian missionary and youth pastor, I assure you, Ive read the bible. More than you have probably. Its why Im an atheist. You talked in circles your entire post, and didnt make one solid premis besides tell us that you believe in god.

[Tristam]

Now if you really want the truth, it is written in the Bible that "knock and the door will be open, ask and you shall be given." You should really read the Bible before you challenge it, even in court, when one needs to discredit or disprove, one needs to know the settings and background of what is truely happening.

Yeah I studied the bible in college and found it to be internally inconsistent and not at all a good answer to why life is how it is.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Since he is too lazy to make an account, he'll post under mine for this post since he insists:

hey, this is Meian's friend, not Meian himself. There is a difference between a debate over authenticating something to understand the truth and meaning behind certain philosophy, and a debate to argue for arguement sake. When the Pharisees tested Jesus about different philosophical approaches in the application of Jewish law (stuff the Moses instated in the first books of the Bible) they are simply challenging and testing Him, to which Jesus responded by telling them that in short "If the question is asked for testing sake and not spiritual reinforcement, there is no need to entertain these thougts. For you seek prove, which is fundamentally against what it means to believe and know me."

Neither you nor I acquired siminary degrees or are at the archeological sites that proves the authenticity of documentation in the gospels, we lack real evidence to back up anything we say. We can quote and site philosophers and historians all we want, it will conclude the same way because: one, most philosopher writes inductive documents and most historians writes in the paradigm of the culture they are in (hints the article of Nacirema) and the point of Christianity and relationship between God and us are suppose to be established based upon faith, and God is not going to take away from that until the second coming. In another word, the inconclusiveness is a way for one to believe and simply believe, a gift of free will I would say.

In short, we are arguing about the color of the world while being blind and I believe that such debates will not amount to anything for it is written in the Bible that it will not.

Now if you really want the truth, it is written in the Bible that "knock and the door will be open, ask and you shall be given." You should really read the Bible before you challenge it, even in court, when one needs to discredit or disprove, one needs to know the settings and background of what is truely happening.

A Hindu can argue the same thing. Or a Zoroastrian.

Why is the Bible correct? Because of your bias. That entire post was moot because it presumes your belief / book are correct.

[Neosutra]

Pretty awesome though, made it to page 10 before someone finally said "just read the bible yo"

[Melchiah]

This is just more of the same self-validifying crap I've come to expect from hardcore theists. They can't answer the hard questions, so they pull the "proof isn't the point" card. Rubbish.

[Mizango]

And wow... You are a bit too forgone to be in this discussion to be honest. If you are one of the "everything god does is good, and everything bad god does is just a test, and is thus also good, praise jesus", then you wont be getting much from anything here.

Edit: To Meian's "friend": I was a christian missionary and youth pastor, I assure you, Ive read the bible. More than you have probably. Its why Im an atheist. You talked in circles your entire post, and didnt make one solid premis besides tell us that you believe in god.

Beat to the punch on both accounts.

[Mizango]

This is just more of the same self-validifying crap I've come to expect from hardcore theists. They can't answer the hard questions, so they pull the "proof isn't the point" card. Rubbish.

Was only a matter of time.

"My god is great, I dont need proof. Fuck you!"

[Melchiah]

INORITE

[Seraph]

Was only a matter of time.

"My god is great, I dont need proof. Fuck you!"

The door kinda swings both ways for this topic. Both sides will swing the "You gotz no proof, epic lulz" dong around all day. Doesn't really change a thing.

The real debate, which actually has merit, is more of the people claiming that religion is inherently evil, and others claiming it is inherently good. I think it has more to do with the people in the group, honestly. It is what you make of it.

As for the Bible, even if you don't believe a word of it, at the very least, a good portion of it is the tale of a man who had some very impressive ideas about social progress and development, considering the time frame and location. I think people completely tossing it aside are just as ignorant as people who think it is 100% correct. It's a guideline. Millage may vary, shit is situational, etc. I think the idea is about 'being a good person' more than 'being a good religious person', and many lose sight of that. The asshole who goes to church every week is still an asshole, and the nice person who doesn't go, is still a nice person. Many people seem to use religion as an excuse to be a dick, and I think that completely goes against what it should be all about. I think many people who have a blatant grudge against theists in general probably have it for this reason.

[Mizango]

No, you're absolutely right in that regard. That proverbial door does swing both ways, we are merely joshing at the fact it took 10 pages for that argument to rear its ugly head. To be completely honest I figured we'd see that statement peppered all over page 2.

[Seraph]

No, you're absolutely right in that regard. That proverbial door does swing both ways, we are merely joshing at the fact it took 10 pages for that argument to rear its ugly head. To be completely honest I figured we'd see that statement peppered all over page 2.

We can go back and edit posts, but I think that's cheating.

[Meian]

This is Meian's Friend again and this is my last post ^^

I see, for a man who has "finished searching," it is difficult to see you changing your opinion and in honest truth it isn't my position to achieve that anyways. When Jesus was supposedly around, He was crucified by the same people that He tried to bring into the Kingdom and I am in no way more knowledgeable or a better teacher than Jesus Himself. I wish you can find that answer. With your abundant Biblical knowledge, I am sure you are aware that this debate is all part of what is to happen as stated in the Bible.

I may be blind, but I can now approach my life knowing that I have a set of foundations taught to me that I can rely on. I appologize for not reading the first post; my pride let me jumped the gun and not sincerely think about what is going on. What you, Neosutra, has gone through to get to where you are today must have been painful and I hope you do not need to go through that again.