...No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

thomas wrote

Not if what you are trying to work out is what the basic meaning of Christianity is. Then relying on the source of that religion is the only sensible thing to do.

And therein lies the fundamental problem with christianity. The fact that there is one source (depending on which sect of christianity you belong to), and not open for debate. The point about the Lord of the Rings trilogy is that it is a literary work with no more or less credibility of being true than the bible. Both works of fiction, though I liked Lord of the Rings more.

thomas wrote

I agree that it's not a scientific source. But it is a credible source for the answering questions about morality, meaning, purpose and God.

Everything is a credible source for answering moral questions. Jerry Springer has his thought of the day, I don't see why if a book answers moral questions that it should be considered, "truth." Besides, I don't think the Bible is the best source for morality considering how much intolerance is found within it.

thomas wrote

Maybe not on average, but there were those who believed it who were highly intelligent. For example, Aquinas.

There were quite a few intelligent men in history who also claimed to be religious for nothing more than to spare their lives. Truly, someone intelligent would find a way not to die.

thomas wrote

And kids in every generation had the opportunity to grow up and question it for themselves. Like you have done. And many of them examined it and found it meaningful and truthful.

I find most people who I talk to, who are still religions, haven't questioned. A good friend of mine is convinced if he questions, god will know and will send him to hell. Now, that is some good brain washing. He's a smart guy, but in that regard, he won't even think. It's true, hes really good at figuring things out, but when it comes to religion, his brain literally turns off. I find that to be true with a lot of people.

thomas wrote

Hope this style of response suits you better.

*sigh* Sort of, continual quotes is a pain to read. I am glad you responded to all my points. I have gained respect from you though that you decided to reply. I would appreciate not quoting every line, just address the points in a paragraph fashion.

thomas wrote

There is no ambiguity there. The main concepts and precepts of Christianity are crystal clear and understood by many people in many cultures over many centuries.

I disagree, and I don't think you're being totally truthful to yourself here. Just about every war throughout history of man kind can be traced back to religious conflict (opposing beliefs). More wars have been waged in the name of god than any other kind. This is why there are so many religions, because people like to pick and choose what to believe and start a new sect.

thomas wrote

Your argument doesn't follow. If I ask ten people the answer to a math question and I get 10 different answers, does that mean there isn't a right answer ? No. Same here. There can be lot's of different interpretations but only one right answer. And again, these points are not around issues of substance.

Well, your argument doesn't hold here either. Because your analogy only holds true if you're talking about christianity specifically, and not all other religions, including but not limited to Greek, Roman, Egyptian mythology et cetera.

thomas wrote

Cut out the insults. They only weaken your argument.

My words are harsh, usually to convey a point. But I don't see how an insult could weaken an argument. However, given that I respect your civil tone, I will refrain. :)

thomas wrote

So, you're saying that because there are multiple ideas of what the truth is that it does mean that there is no truth ? Sounds wrong to me.

What I am saying, and that you're evading, is that in regard to christianity (and religion in general) is that all of them consider themselves to be "truth" and all others are false. So, by definition there can be only one truth. I didn't set the rules for that, you religious folks did. Don't question me, your rules.

thomas wrote

Of course, there is a market-place for ideas, and we all try and come to our best conclusions about what is right or wrong. You are part of that market-place. Don't you believe that your world-view and philosophy are correct ?

Kind of fitting referring religion it to a market place. I am of a the firm opinion that religion is the best money market place in existence. They rake in tons of tax free cash. That besides the point, I don't necessarily think that my world views are right or wrong. I think they make sense and I am willing to change my position on my views as long as someone makes more sense logically and realistically.

thomas wrote

I have no reason to disbelieve the science of evolution. Now, will you address my point, which is that wrong interpretations of data don't prove that the data is not clear. It may just say something about the interpreter.

You have no reason to disbelieve science because it's based on a foundation of what we know, not what we would like to believe. Interpretation is all fine and good when it involves trivial things. But when people take something as serious as belief in something that is unknown and cannot be proven things become more tricky. When using math as an example, as you did above. Sure there are several ways of coming to the same answer. But these aren't interpretations. These are actual methodical formulas that can all be proven. There is no such proof for god, nor can it be traced back. Bottom line, the bible is ambigious and contradicts itself in many places. So yes, interpreters can and will misinterepret things, especially when the source is ambiguous to begin with.

thomas wrote

Hopefully, I addressed your concern in this regard ?

Yes and no. :) I'm glad you responded to all my points, however, if you can do it in paragraph form as opposed to continual quotes, it would make for easier reading. You almost come across as agnostic to me. You don’t seem to be taking a firm footing with religion or otherwise which makes for a strange debate because you’ll agree with things in areas that no christian should be agreeing with (like not disagreeing with the science of evolution). The other problem I have with your arguments is that you shroud your position behind the ambiguity of “maybe” and “could be.” That just screams of agnosticism. This is not an attack, just an observation.

I am enjoying this discussion and would also like to pose a question to you. What books have you read in regards to atheism? And if you have read any, did you read them to completion?

thomas wrote

Not if what you are trying to work out is what the basic meaning of Christianity is. Then relying on the source of that religion is the only sensible thing to do.

And therein lies the fundamental problem with christianity. The fact that there is one source (depending on which sect of christianity you belong to), and not open for debate. The point about the Lord of the Rings trilogy is that it is a literary work with no more or less credibility of being true than the bible. Both works of fiction, though I liked Lord of the Rings more.

thomas wrote

I agree that it's not a scientific source. But it is a credible source for the answering questions about morality, meaning, purpose and God.

Everything is a credible source for answering moral questions. Jerry Springer has his thought of the day, I don't see why if a book answers moral questions that it should be considered, "truth." Besides, I don't think the Bible is the best source for morality considering how much intolerance is found within it.

thomas wrote

Maybe not on average, but there were those who believed it who were highly intelligent. For example, Aquinas.

There were quite a few intelligent men in history who also claimed to be religious for nothing more than to spare their lives. Truly, someone intelligent would find a way not to die.

thomas wrote

And kids in every generation had the opportunity to grow up and question it for themselves. Like you have done. And many of them examined it and found it meaningful and truthful.

I find most people who I talk to, who are still religions, haven't questioned. A good friend of mine is convinced if he questions, god will know and will send him to hell. Now, that is some good brain washing. He's a smart guy, but in that regard, he won't even think. It's true, hes really good at figuring things out, but when it comes to religion, his brain literally turns off. I find that to be true with a lot of people.

thomas wrote

Hope this style of response suits you better.

*sigh* Sort of, continual quotes is a pain to read. I am glad you responded to all my points. I have gained respect from you though that you decided to reply. I would appreciate not quoting every line, just address the points in a paragraph fashion.

thomas wrote

There is no ambiguity there. The main concepts and precepts of Christianity are crystal clear and understood by many people in many cultures over many centuries.

I disagree, and I don't think you're being totally truthful to yourself here. Just about every war throughout history of man kind can be traced back to religious conflict (opposing beliefs). More wars have been waged in the name of god than any other kind. This is why there are so many religions, because people like to pick and choose what to believe and start a new sect.

thomas wrote

Your argument doesn't follow. If I ask ten people the answer to a math question and I get 10 different answers, does that mean there isn't a right answer ? No. Same here. There can be lot's of different interpretations but only one right answer. And again, these points are not around issues of substance.

Well, your argument doesn't hold here either. Because your analogy only holds true if you're talking about christianity specifically, and not all other religions, including but not limited to Greek, Roman, Egyptian mythology et cetera.

thomas wrote

Cut out the insults. They only weaken your argument.

My words are harsh, usually to convey a point. But I don't see how an insult could weaken an argument. However, given that I respect your civil tone, I will refrain. :)

thomas wrote

So, you're saying that because there are multiple ideas of what the truth is that it does mean that there is no truth ? Sounds wrong to me.

What I am saying, and that you're evading, is that in regard to christianity (and religion in general) is that all of them consider themselves to be "truth" and all others are false. So, by definition there can be only one truth. I didn't set the rules for that, you religious folks did. Don't question me, your rules.

thomas wrote

Of course, there is a market-place for ideas, and we all try and come to our best conclusions about what is right or wrong. You are part of that market-place. Don't you believe that your world-view and philosophy are correct ?

Kind of fitting referring religion it to a market place. I am of a the firm opinion that religion is the best money market place in existence. They rake in tons of tax free cash. That besides the point, I don't necessarily think that my world views are right or wrong. I think they make sense and I am willing to change my position on my views as long as someone makes more sense logically and realistically.

thomas wrote

I have no reason to disbelieve the science of evolution. Now, will you address my point, which is that wrong interpretations of data don't prove that the data is not clear. It may just say something about the interpreter.

You have no reason to disbelieve science because it's based on a foundation of what we know, not what we would like to believe. Interpretation is all fine and good when it involves trivial things. But when people take something as serious as belief in something that is unknown and cannot be proven things become more tricky. When using math as an example, as you did above. Sure there are several ways of coming to the same answer. But these aren't interpretations. These are actual methodical formulas that can all be proven. There is no such proof for god, nor can it be traced back. Bottom line, the bible is ambigious and contradicts itself in many places. So yes, interpreters can and will misinterepret things, especially when the source is ambiguous to begin with.

thomas wrote

Hopefully, I addressed your concern in this regard ?

Yes and no. :) I'm glad you responded to all my points, however, if you can do it in paragraph form as opposed to continual quotes, it would make for easier reading. You almost come across as agnostic to me. You don’t seem to be taking a firm footing with religion or otherwise which makes for a strange debate because you’ll agree with things in areas that no christian should be agreeing with (like not disagreeing with the science of evolution). The other problem I have with your arguments is that you shroud your position behind the ambiguity of “maybe” and “could be.” That just screams of agnosticism. This is not an attack, just an observation.

I am enjoying this discussion and would also like to pose a question to you. What books have you read in regards to atheism? And if you have read any, did you read them to completion?

thomas wrote

ee, thanks for your analysis of the chapter. I want to focus on verses 6 and 7, and tell you why I don't think they apply in the way you think they do.

6 Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 "If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him."

From these verses you can see that coming to the Father is not dependent on being dead, and entering into paradise "From now on you do know Him". It's an immediate privilege that is available, right there and then to the disciples. How is it available ? Through Jesus. The theology here is a major change from OT theology where God was only present in the Temple, and only one priest, once a year went into the temple to be in God's presence. This is Jesus announcing the change from that to the new reality where Christians can enter into God's presence.

He then goes on to talk about the Spirit, the Counsellor, who will be the means by which this is achieved. The mechanism that permits Christians to be in the presence of God.

So, I don't see where this verse closes down the possibility of the young child or the pre-Jesus person from getting into heaven. I do think it teaches that Jesus is the mechanism that allows any of those people to enter heaven. So, I say yes to "know Jesus, know heaven", but not clear to "no Jesus, no heaven".

Then what is this "place" spoken of?
For instance: One doesn't go to another place when one has knowledge of something.
"3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."



To 'cometh to something' is to come to it.
not think about it
not believe it
not know it
etc.

If knowing is the same as coming to something or vice versa, why not say, "knoweth the father" instead of "cometh unto the father" in #6?

Also: Remember, the CHAPTER is talking about multiple things.
I never said my analysis was derived from one verse, sir. It's only the title. ;)



Thomas: "This is Jesus announcing the change from that to the new reality where Christians can enter into God's presence. "
How so?

The only reason the comforter is mentioned is because philip had doubts about god/christ/whatever in v8.
Not because it relates to heaven, v8 marks a change in topic, a new tangent.

In v9-21 christ is worried about doubts and has presented a list of things that are supposed to strengthen faith.

Important note: Whether christ is supposed to be speaking about christians in general or the prophets performing 'works' (v12) or having prayers answered (v13-14) is uncertain.





BTW: What would it imply if the "no jesus/no heaven" were not true or is rightfully doubtable (as it seems it may be to you, sir) as it relates to typical christian doctrine?
ee

Christ wrote

And therein lies the fundamental problem with christianity. The fact that there is one source (depending on which sect of christianity you belong to), and not open for debate. The point about the Lord of the Rings trilogy is that it is a literary work with no more or less credibility of being true than the bible. Both works of fiction, though I liked Lord of the Rings more.

I see an obvious distinction between the Lord of the Rings and the Bible. The former is acknowledged as a work of fiction both by its author and by those whom he consulted with whilst writing the book. The latter is presented by it's authors as a work of "history" (in the ancient sense). One would be foolish to believe as true, what is acknowledged by it's author as fictional.

Christ wrote

There were quite a few intelligent men in history who also claimed to be religious for nothing more than to spare their lives. Truly, someone intelligent would find a way not to die.

I'm sure you are right, but not Aquinas. My only point is that not only people who lacked intelligence believed the Bible, so your previous attack that claimed that only stupid people believe it, is unfounded.

Christ wrote

I find most people who I talk to, who are still religions, haven't questioned. A good friend of mine is convinced if he questions, god will know and will send him to hell. Now, that is some good brain washing. He's a smart guy, but in that regard, he won't even think. It's true, hes really good at figuring things out, but when it comes to religion, his brain literally turns off. I find that to be true with a lot of people.

It's a sad fact that you are correct. But this problem doesn't only apply to Christianity but to all beliefs. I can agree that it's important to believe in things for the right reasons.

Christ wrote

*sigh* Sort of, continual quotes is a pain to read. I am glad you responded to all my points. I have gained respect from you though that you decided to reply. I would appreciate not quoting every line, just address the points in a paragraph fashion.

Yes, it's not so easy to get back to that now the points are split out, without facing the accusation that I'm avoiding your arguments.

Christ wrote

I disagree, and I don't think you're being totally truthful to yourself here. Just about every war throughout history of man kind can be traced back to religious conflict (opposing beliefs). More wars have been waged in the name of god than any other kind. This is why there are so many religions, because people like to pick and choose what to believe and start a new sect.

I don't know if your comment about the number of wars being fought in the name of God is factually correct. Do you have any data to back up your claim ? I do think that, for example, the apostles creed which has stayed unchanged over the last 1700+ years shows that the central precepts of Christianity are crystal clear and understood.

Christ wrote

Well, your argument doesn't hold here either. Because your analogy only holds true if you're talking about christianity specifically, and not all other religions, including but not limited to Greek, Roman, Egyptian mythology et cetera.

Yes, it does hold. There having been many different ideas about religion does not prevent one of those ideas being correct.

Christ wrote

What I am saying, and that you're evading, is that in regard to christianity (and religion in general) is that all of them consider themselves to be "truth" and all others are false. So, by definition there can be only one truth. I didn't set the rules for that, you religious folks did. Don't question me, your rules.

I agree that where two opposing claims are made, there can only be at most one correct claim. The question is which, if any, of the claims are correct. Just because there are two claims doesn't mean that (a) one of them can't be correct or (b) that there is insufficient evidence to decide.

Christ wrote

Kind of fitting referring religion it to a market place. I am of a the firm opinion that religion is the best money market place in existence. They rake in tons of tax free cash. That besides the point, I don't necessarily think that my world views are right or wrong. I think they make sense and I am willing to change my position on my views as long as someone makes more sense logically and realistically.

Me too. But that doesn't prevent me from saying that I think I'm right and that other people are wrong, nor does it cause me to say that nobody can be correct because somebody disagrees with me. Which is your basic argument here.

Christ wrote

You have no reason to disbelieve science because it's based on a foundation of what we know, not what we would like to believe. Interpretation is all fine and good when it involves trivial things. But when people take something as serious as belief in something that is unknown and cannot be proven things become more tricky. When using math as an example, as you did above. Sure there are several ways of coming to the same answer. But these aren't interpretations. These are actual methodical formulas that can all be proven. There is no such proof for god, nor can it be traced back. Bottom line, the bible is ambigious and contradicts itself in many places. So yes, interpreters can and will misinterepret things, especially when the source is ambiguous to begin with.

Of course we disagree on most of your points. I think their is reasonable evidence to justify belief in God. I don't think the Bible is ambiguous and contradictory, on the contrary I think a consistent and coherent reading is possible. Because I disagree with your position does that mean that neither of us can be correct ? Or maybe you think you are correct and I am wrong ? How come you take such a position for yourself and your views, but won't allow it for people who disagree over the interpretation of the Bible ?

Christ wrote

Yes and no. :) I'm glad you responded to all my points, however, if you can do it in paragraph form as opposed to continual quotes, it would make for easier reading. You almost come across as agnostic to me. You don’t seem to be taking a firm footing with religion or otherwise which makes for a strange debate because you’ll agree with things in areas that no christian should be agreeing with (like not disagreeing with the science of evolution). The other problem I have with your arguments is that you shroud your position behind the ambiguity of “maybe” and “could be.” That just screams of agnosticism. This is not an attack, just an observation.

I am distinctly not agnostic in any sense. Many Christians would agree with my position on evolution ? What else do I agree with that "Christians shouldn't agree with".

Christ wrote

I am enjoying this discussion and would also like to pose a question to you. What books have you read in regards to atheism? And if you have read any, did you read them to completion?

Wouldn't a book an atheism be very short ? "There is no God". What books do you recommend I read ?

[Philboid Studge]

thomas wrote

the apostles creed which has stayed unchanged over the last 1700+ years shows that the central precepts of Christianity are crystal clear and understood.

I'd quibble over the phrase 'crystal clear and understood.' If this is so, why are there so many xian sects? (1500+?) I suppose there is widespread agreement as to the very basics -- creator God, Son saves mankind, maybe one or two other points -- but there's hardly crystal clear understanding of 'precepts' as you say, and certainly not for the last 1700+ years. Do all Xians have the same understanding of 'hell ... the forgiveness of sins ... the communion of saints ..."? I don't think so.

P.S. I'll never doubt that you have a dialogue with "Christ" again. :)

thomas wrote

Wouldn't a book an atheism be very short ? "There is no God". What books do you recommend I read ?

Actually, most atheist books are very detailed and most will show you how they come to their conclusions. The one I am reading right now is.

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
By: Sam Harris
ISBN: 0393327655

So far it's really good and goes into great depth. I have a whole list of other books that will keep me busy for some time. Let me know if you're interested in them and I'll list a few more that I have on my "reading list." :) Normally I wouldn't even bring these books up to a religious person, because I've NEVER met one religious person read a book I've suggested when I've read books they've suggested. It's really disheartening. I get the feeling you're not like that.

Philboid Studge wrote

P.S. I'll never doubt that you have a dialogue with "Christ" again. :)

:P

thomas wrote

Wouldn't a book an atheism be very short ? "There is no God". What books do you recommend I read ?

ATHEISM: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, ISBN 0-87975-124-X

Best book out there in my opinion.

Ethan wrote

ATHEISM: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, ISBN 0-87975-124-X

Best book out there in my opinion.

That's on my list. I haven't gotten to it yet. Looking forward to it though.

Ethan wrote

ATHEISM: The Case Against God by George H. Smith, ISBN 0-87975-124-X

Best book out there in my opinion.

I agree. It is a great read. A sizable one, but I finished it in less than two weeks (in between work) because of how sound its reasoning is.