Christianity and Love

Great Debates
161

Wow, lots to respond to. I’ll do my best. My ISP was out for awhile but I’m back on now.

David B quoted me as saying: “God IS totally logical. So IF there’s a lack of logic in our understanding of Him, it’s US who are missing something, not God!”
He then said: “Talk about illogical. You are starting with the basis that God must be totally logical – because you believe it to be so. Then you are using that basis to argue that God is totally logical.”

I guess I should explain something to you, Gaudere, and everyone who is reading my comments. You said I am starting with the basis that God must be totally logical just because “I believe it”. Incorrect. I am starting with that basis because I KNOW it to be true. Why? Because …

I have known God personally since I was 8 years old.

I know many of you will laugh hysterically. All I can do is tell you this … everything I’ve ever seen God do in my life or in the lives of others over the past 26 years have made total sense. Plus, forgive me for using common sense here, but it just seems like the creator of the universe would know what He’s doing. If He’s big enough to come up with blood, bones, eyes, mountains, rivers, oceans, etc etc (you get the picture) I somehow think He knows what He’s doing in other areas.

So my trust in God’s character and His logic comes from having known him. Before someone accuses me of putting myself on a pedestal, let me reiterate what should already be clear from my earlier posts. Knowing God has nothing to do with ME and everything to do with Jesus making a WAY for me to be able to know Him. In other words, every person reading this can know Him in exactly the same way I have.
“Your God shield keeps anything that is illogical out of your head by rationalizing that it must be logical, but we just can’t understand why.”
You might think certain things are illogical David … that doesn’t mean that they ARE illogical. Honestly now, in a logic matchup between you and the creator of the universe, do you really think you’d win?
Also … you seem to be implying that we can understand everything about God. Are you saying that if you believe something and God says something else, that God needs to rethink things?
Finally - “you should lower the shields and try to see what Gaudere and others are saying.”
Oh it’s not hard to see what they’re saying … do you honestly believe that any of it makes SENSE?! (No offense Gaudere).
Polycarp, you’re next. Thank you for the tone of your post. I’m gonna go ahead and post this so you guys don’t think I’m dead or somethin’ :wink:

162

Friend of Gold said:

quote:


Although I think I lean more toward DavidB's way of thinking...perhaps not as rigidly so, however, I do find some truth in this point. Like DavidB I am of the opinion that FOG's perspective is illogical, according to my perspective of what is logical (no offense), though I also find much of DavidB (and others) replies illogical by the same criteria (once again no offense) this does not mean that either side truly is illogical. Each has their own perspective on reality that is "true" from their own phenomenological perspective. At least that is what my "Post-Modernist Survival Guide" tells me to say.
163

Polycarp, first of all you said “Friend of God, I may owe you an apology, and if so, you have it. You have turned anger with grace, and in that, at least, you deserve praise for following our Lord. I was quite uncharitable in my earlier posts to this thread, and should definitely mellow a bit.”
I honestly don’t recall you being overly harsh but then again I haven’t reread the earlier posts in a while. The bottom line is, if you feel the need to ask for forgiveness I certainly will extend it to you. :slight_smile: Thanks for the graciousness of your words.

You said: "It is not for you, or me, or Esprix, or Gaudere, to decide how a fifth person should live his or her life. That is a question to be answered by that individual, guided by the Holy Spirit and God’s Word. (And, as I noted, God’s Word is not to be equated with the Bible; it is a holy record, to be sure, and I for one believe every word is there because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be. But that does not mean that it becomes the instant reference guide, with a verse tailor made for every situation: “Headache? Take two verses of Romans and call me in the morning!”

You might be surprised but I basically agree with you. Each individual believer has to hear what God is calling them to do and obey. And certainly that will be different for different people. Some will be called to preach to millions, others will be called to be a housewife who raises godly kids and influences her neighborhood for Christ.

The best illustration I’ve heard of the Bible is that it is like the “stripes on the road”. If I’m traveling down the road of life, wanting to do God’s will, I’m safe as long as I don’t cross the stripes. The Bible can’t tell you when to turn left, slow down, stop, back up. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

But at the same time, if I cross the stripes I’m in danger of crashing. A classic example among Christians is when a Christian wants to date a nonbeliever. The Bible is pretty clear that you shouldn’t do that (not to mention it just makes common sense – two people dating that are going in diametrically opposed directions? Not gonna work!). There is NO NEED in this case to pray, because the Bible has already spoken as the “stripes on the road”.
You said: “You have done a wonderful job of setting forth the traditional theology of salvation, complete with the substitutionary atonement.”
Thank you!

You then said: “in none of your posts do you suggest why the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is Good News now in the present to (… numerous good examples …). Rather, you seem set on presenting strictures on how one is supposed to live a Christian life according to your precepts.”
A related later quote: "In short, where is the Gospel, the Good News, in what you have posted? Why is this a matter to bring joy to their hearts? "

I am duly chastised! :slight_smile: I feel like saying “Preach it brother!” You are very, very, correct. I have gotten SO involved in the minutea (sp?) of trying to discuss EVERY little nit-picky detail that Guadere wants to discuss, that I have allowed the larger, more important message, to go totally unstated. In all sincerity, THANK YOU for pointing this out to me.

And let me correct myself right here and now. Polycarp is right. The Gospel is GOOD NEWS!

The gospel answers the age-old question of loneliness. Come to Him and you will NEVER be alone again. You will never face another crisis alone again. You will never weep in agony alone ever again. There will ALWAYS be someone with you to weep with you, encourage you, strengthen you, and help you to stand strong.

The gospel solves the issue of fulfillment. In this world there are many things that claim to provide it, but only our Creator can truly fulfill our deepest needs. Only our Creator can truly fulfill our sense of destiny and calling. If you feel empty inside, God can fill that emptiness with joy, peace, and a purpose in life.

The gospel gives you freedom to fail and still accept yourself. The gospel says that God sees EVERYthing in your life … the good, the bad, and the ugly … and He still loves you. No matter WHAT you’ve done in your life, God loves you deeply and accepts you. And because of the blood of Jesus, you can be TOTALLY forgiven of every sin you’ve ever committed, or ever will commit.

The gospel gives you a deep level of joy that surpasses happiness. It gives you a joy that can STICK even in the most dire of circumstances.

The gospel gives you confidence. The gospel promises peace in your heart. The gospel promises the ultimate reward … an eternity in the very presence of God, your Creator.

God eagerly wishes each of you would come to Him to begin a love relationship with Him. How do I know this? His Word says:
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

I pray that anyone who reads this will be open to the life-changing power of the Gospel of God.

164

Polycarp I realized I still had one more quote of yours to comment on … this one: “I countered that he should accept them as a part of what he is, the self God gave him, and then avoid acting on them if he believes them sinful, but use them to the greater glory of God and the furtherance of His Kingdom. You, on the other hand, would presumably suggest that he needs to go through some kind of aversive therapy to “get rid of his sinful desires.” (I am putting words in your mouth, here, I know, and I would welcome your correction of them.)”

Well, first thanks for welcoming my comments. I think the same thing applies here no matter what the sin. One statement I heard regarding Christians and sin is so very true: “A Christian is ruined for sin for life!” That is the truth. A Christian actually has a HEIGHTENED awareness of their own sins than before they were Christians. It happens naturally because God is living in you and you have an “internal check” that lets you know when you’re doing something wrong.

Basically, sin is never “fun” for a Christian to the same degree it is for a nonbeliever. Make no mistake it IS fun (for a season as the Bible says) but in the end it’s miserable. So a Christian doesn’t really WANT to “accept” these things as being a “part of who they are”. They want to get RID of these things!

Many Christians make the mistake of “trying hard” to change in their area of weakness, be it porn, or anger, or whatever. They forget that they don’t get to HEAVEN by “trying hard”, and neither will they get rid of their sins by “trying hard” to stop. Only through Christ and His strength can we change.

Without making this too long … “Grace” is God giving us the DESIRE and POWER to do what’s right. Without God’s grace, we wouldn’t even WANT to do the right thing. I have had dozens of times when I was being tempted to sin, and I cried out to God and said, “Please give me the grace to not want this!” Then, believing God is on my side in the battle and would have no reason I know of to not answer that prayer, I choose to believe He has answered it, and I have His grace. Astonishingly, supernaturally, my desire changes with absolutely no effort on my part. It blows me away each time it happens.

SORRY IM LONGWINDED tonite! Very long answer to a very short point, but I hope it was interesting and answered the question.

165

Esprix, a brief response to you. I asked God to expose to me how you felt emotionally about what I said. He showed me that you felt attacked, but more importantly you felt like I was attacking CLOSE FRIENDS of yours, and you felt the need to jump to their defense. As you said “I’m speaking up for my gay Christian friends”.

I also feel like I enforced the false stereotype that Christians are “gay bashers”, and that I made you feel condemned. I also think I made you feel like I personally had something against you. I think you felt, like Polycarp said, like I was “bashing you over the head with a Bible.”

Esprix, I’ve apologized and I’ll let my apology stand as is. I will simply reiterate that I did NOT intend for this to happen to you and didn’t want you to feel this way. Hopefully I’ll be more careful with my words in the future.
Okay Guadere, your turn.
First let me say this … I’m not going anywhere. No, I don’t have answers for each and every thing that you consider illogical about God. But I’m not leaving. I will, as you suggested (and as I’ve actually already started to do) bring this one up to some of my Christian friends. My brother is especially good at explaining the so-called “deeper issues” of the faith, and I’d love to get his two cents worth. Over time, believe me, if I get some clear answers I will pass them along to you.

In the meantime, let me direct you to my earlier post (about 2 back) that explains WHY on earth I believe God is logical even if I don’t personally know every single point of logic myself. You might be incredulous … “HOW on earth can you believe and trust God and think Him to be logical when you haven’t had all of these questions answered???”
You might be surprised to know that most of the questions you’ve raised are questions that just never bothered me. There ARE some interesting questions I’ve asked of God over the years, and some fascinating Bible studies have unearthed aspects of God I might not have otherwise known about.

Likewise our discussion. As I said earlier, God is using this in my life to stretch my understanding of God even further! I find this an “interesting” discussion, but if I can’t find an answer that satisfies you, I will only be sincerely disappointed for YOU because you seem to want an answer so badly. I will go on my merry way and say, “Well that was interesting. God I’ll have to ask you that one around the campfire sometime during the first 1000 years.”

Here’s a quote from you: “And I would expect anyone, man or God, to not appall my logic, common sense, and compassion, if they wish my respect.”
Is there a typo? Seriously, did you mean “appall”? I’m not sure I totally follow this, but I gather you’re basically saying God should respect that fact that you want Him to make sense. Guess what? He DOES respect that! But again I must ask … HOW much proof do you require Guadere? Do you require God to answer EVERY possible question of logic you have for Him? If you do, I guarantee you’ll have a long wait. As I’ve said, I plan to still be learning 1000 years from now.

I’m concerned that if I do find a good, clear, concise answer to your questions, you’ll just move on to more questions. And then again after those are answered. When will it end? Do you demand God answers every question?

Having said all that, I will respond briefly to some of the specific points in your last post on my next one. To be continued …

166

Okay Gaudere, you said “Quite frankly, eternal torture for a finite amount of sin is not just.”
Interesting. This is a new objection I’ve not heard yet.

Here’s the deal. God, for whatever reason, has given us this period of time that we are alive on earth to make a choice. We can either choose God or choose ourselves. It is not per se about individual sins, whether committed multiple times or not. It’s about the overall choice to turn our backs on God, or to turn TO God. Basically you are making an infinate, forever-lasting choice whether you like it or not. As someone said earlier, rejecting God is the famous “unpardonable sin”. If, at the end of my life, my decision has been to reject God, I deserve eternal separation from Him. How dare I reject God? It is, appropriately, unpardonable and deserving of the worst punishment imagineable.

If however I live a life of sin my whole life, and at the end I finally humble myself and make the choice to turn to God … it is approriate that I have an eternal reward. It is the ultimate act of humility for us to admit that we belong to God and not to ourselves, and it’s a just reward to reward someone eternally for that choice.
I’m SURE there’s something in that that you will want to question, so fire away, I’m ready! :slight_smile:
Here’s another quote: “You still haven’t shown why the innocent must suffer to spare the guilty! Just saying “that’s the way it is” doesn’t explain how it’s supposed to make any sense!”
Well, I would argue that I have covered this up to a point, but I concede, as I have before, that you have a good question that I don’t know how to explain clearly at the moment. As I said, I’m going to poll some friends to see how they would explain it. My challenge to you in the meantime is – can you come up with an alternative that YOU think makes sense, within the parameters I gave?

Another quote: “what determines what is good and evil, if not God?”
The only way I know how to answer is this - God’s inherent goodness and logic determines good and evil. It’s not like he pulled out a blackboard and said, “Hm okay … murder in the ‘bad’ category, love in the ‘good’ category, cookies and cream ice cream in the ‘neutral’ category …”. But neither is good and evil a nebulous force that God submits to.
To take the obvious example, is it not clear to you and I that murder is ‘bad’? God, being perfectly logical (I KNOW you don’t believe this yet, but humor me), just inherently “knows” that it is wrong to murder, to rape, to hate someone, to lust, to cuss someone out, etc etc. He also inherently “knows” that it is good to smile, be cheerful, be kind, give someone M&M’s, etc. (Okay I threw that last one in :)).

I realize that answer won’t totally satisfy you, but I hope it gives you food for thought. It’s an interesting question! I may poll my friends for more thoughts on this one too.

Another quote: “I thought the goal of God was unforced love. “Love me or burn” is not unforced.”

LOL! Never heard it described as “love me or burn”!
No, it is indeed unforced. God does not force you to love Him, He leaves it up to you. You’d be surpised at how MANY people have heard the full gospel, understood it, and rejected it. They KNOW they’re going to hell and they make the choice to reject God. Of course, a lot of these people delude themselves that hell is going to be like one big MTV beach party or something, but still, they make the choice.
Quote number next: first, you quoted me as saying “God loves us and doesnt want to punish us, but He’s just and so He has to punish us”. You responded, “But this isn’t really one of your initial premises; if it was axiomatic that God must punish us, He would have to punish us always”.
I don’t get this one … please explain further. Why do you think that God would “have to” punish us “always”? Do you mean on a moment by moment, sin by sin basis?
Second … actually, this was my very FIRST premise. Look back on my first post on this topic. This is one of the lines that started this back’n’forth debate!
You quoted me as saying: “One thread he kept seeing over and over was that EVERY religion had something at least nice to say about Jesus.” You responded "The people of the Book all say nice things about Moses, too, but that doesn’t make Moses God, or make the Jews necessarily correct. "

I’ll admit here that I was just telling a story. This isn’t “gospel” and isn’t the way everyone comes to God. There IS one distinction with Moses and everyone else, like Abraham, that other religions might admire. None of the others CLAIMED to be God. Jesus did.
Finally, to some of your final comments: ““I don’t know and I have no desire to know” is terribly disappointing though.”

Well, there are MANY things I desire to know about God and faith in Christ and living the Christian life. The questions you are asking are things YOU desire to know, and I am doing my best to try to help find answers for you. As I said earlier, I will go away perfectly content to not know the answers if necessary … although I’ll admit I hope that’s not how it ends. If you are genuinely seeking then I want you to get the answers you need…again, as long as you don’t expect God to answer everything instantly.

“I don’t know and I have no desire to know” is not ALWAYS a bad thing. You can’t know about everything. I don’t know anything about electrical engineering, and I have no desire to know. Is that so bad? (Please don’t say it is!! :))

Another quote: “you seem to think that saying something makes it so, which isn’t how it works unless you’re simply positing axioms.”
No, saying something doesn’t make it so, and I’ve never believed that nor have I stated that. I could say, “God is a chicken, and by golly you folks better believe it” and it won’t make it true no matter how sincere I am. The standard of truth that we all must submit to is God’s Word, the Bible. Yes, I know you and most of those on this board don’t see that, but just realize that’s where I’m coming from, which I believe I’ve stated several times already. I believe something is true because it’s scripturally based.
Another quote: "And I suggest that you think about how your statements will be read by others; how would you react to someone telling you that you were not a Christian? Do you think this is the best way to reach people? "
You are “right on” here, Gaudere (Finally, something we can agree on!). Again, as I told Esprix, it was totally and completely a misunderstanding on my part. I read a statement he made, and misunderstood it to mean that he agreed with the statement I later made. That’s what I get for not reading carefully. No, it’s not a good way to reach people. I’ve never gone up to someone and sharply said, “Hey, you’re not a Christian” and never would.

Final quote: “Do you think that you have the right to say that someone who believes in Jesus the Christ is not a Christian?”
In light of the controversy that started this issue I don’t think I’ll comment right now in depth. All I’ll do is leave this semi-cryptic comment … there are many places in the Bible where Jesus Himself says that there will be many people on Judgment Day that claim to be Christians that will not be on the side of the fence they think they should be on.

167

Polycarp, forgive me, I’m going chronologically in my responses, and I just got to your later post. LOTS TO READ!!! But all interesting.

You said: "FoG: have I missed any NT reference? I don’t have a Bible handy where I’m posting.) "
The only NT reference that contains the word “homosexual”, as far as I know, is the one you mentioned, 1 Cor 6:9, which I think I quoted earlier in this thread. And as you mentioned, Romans 1 refers to homosexual conduct. The O.T. also refers to homosexual conduct in some of the OT laws. (see Leviticus 18:22 for just one example).
Guadere, I may regret it but I’d like to briefly comment on one thing you said in the other debate you’re having in this thread. You said: “Pour enough energy into a system, and it will spontaneously organize even into extremely complex forms, due to the simple physical laws involved.”
I don’t agree. Everything DEgenerates, not the other way around. Bodies get older, trees grow less stable, houses begin to fall apart, the room gets dusty, etc. To follow your theory, as I understand it, bodies would be constantly improving and getting better, the room would become cleaner and cleaner each day, etc.
You also said “Well, there’s the proof you sneer at: physical manifestation, miracles, all the dead rising from graves, a big booming voice that calls the next year’s lottery numbers”. Actually, Jesus put a lot of stock in this type of proof (well, I dunno about lottery numbers, but …). Sooo Gaudere, would you like to go to a miracle crusade with me sometime? It’d be fun and you might just see some of this type of proof you want! :wink: Having said that, I agree with avalongod’s overall point. It’s basically the same thing I said earlier so I won’t repeat.

168

Your logic depends on this personal relationship. So do you understand how the same logic does not hold up to someone who does not has not had this “personal experience”?

Absolutely not. I respect your beliefs. I just don’t think you should expect them to make sense to the rest of us.

So when a whole busload of kids dies in a fiery crash, that makes perfect sense? To you, it does, because you believe that God always makes perfect sense, and you know he has some greater purpose that you can’t grasp. Can you understand that someone who didn’t necessarily believe that God always makes sense might not see it the same way?

You didn’t answer Gaudere’s question at all. Let’s say I meet you in a dark alley, and I hold a gun to your head and demand your wallet. Gee, Officer, I didn’t force him to give me his wallet, I left it up to him. It was a totally free choice.

Also, I think you mischaracterize those who “reject the gospel”. Most people who are not Christians don’t believe that they’re going to hell, period. They haven’t rejected it because they think hell is an MTV Beach Party–it’s because they aren’t convinced it exists at all. Can you understand how other people could read those same words and not believe them to be absolute and literal truth?

Dr. J

169

Hi there Dr J.

You said: "Your logic depends on this personal relationship. So do you understand how the same logic does not hold up to someone who does not has not had this “personal experience”? "
Yes I do understand this. I was merely trying to explain why I see it as logical.

Then you said: “Absolutely not. I respect your beliefs. I just don’t think you should expect them to make sense to the rest of us.”
Thank you for respecting my beliefs! I appreciate it. As I just stated, I don’t expect you to instantly believe it just because I’ve had this experience.
Next, you said: “So when a whole busload of kids dies in a fiery crash, that makes perfect sense? To you, it does, because you believe that God always makes perfect sense, and you know he has some greater purpose that you can’t grasp. Can you understand that someone who didn’t necessarily believe that God always makes sense might not see it the same way?”
Ah, the famous “why does God allow evil” debate! I actually love this debate because it’s one area where I believe I have some solid answers. Along with the other topic I want to start (on this sinfulness of man), I think I will start a topic on this sometime. I am kind of waiting for this topic and the other 2 I’m posting on to “die down” before doing it.
Yes I understand how this particular point confuses people. It has confounded people through the ages. I honestly believe, however, that there are solid answers for this one. As a teaser I’ll say this: the key to understanding why God allows evil is understanding the issue of free will, and why it’s so important to God. Like I said, I want to dive into this one bigtime in the future.

Finally you said “Also, I think you mischaracterize those who “reject the gospel”. Most people who are not Christians don’t believe that they’re going to hell, period. They haven’t rejected it because they think hell is an MTV Beach Party–it’s because they aren’t convinced it exists at all. Can you understand how other people could read those same words and not believe them to be absolute and literal truth?”
I think you’re talking about a different category of people. These are people who don’t understand, haven’t heard, or maybe just don’t fully “agree” yet with the gospel as they’ve heard it. I’m talking about people who’ve heard the full gospel, BELIEVED it to be the truth, and rejected it.
As for Guadere’s question … first off, thanks for pointing out what would have probably been her objection anyway! :slight_smile: Saved her some time.

You’re right, I get it now. All I can give here is something to chew on … God does not zero in on the hell aspect in wooing you. Yes it’s an aspect, but not the main one. God doesn’t want you to come to Him only because of fear of hell.
Another way to look at it: the hell thing is just a REALITY. It’s GONNA happen. It’s not like God is saying, “I need a good motivator to get people to have a love relationship with me. Hmmm… I know! I’ll tell them I’ll throw them into a burning lake of fire if they don’t!” No, it’s more like this … we sin, we deserve the punishment of hell. God steps in and provides an alternative. He woos you with His love to make the right choice.

I’m sure Guadere will still have something to say, but at least I got a few more comments in! :slight_smile:

170

FriendofGod said:

It may make you feel better to change the word “believe” to “KNOW,” but it’s the same thing in this case.

Yes. By default.

When God starts talking to me and saying something else, I’ll get back to ya. Until then, we just have to go by what His alleged book and believers say – and there is an awful lot of illogic there.

171

FriendofGod wrote:

I’m not quite sure why you had to ask God what I felt when I outright told you. :confused: And I don’t feel “attacked” at all - you ain’t sayin’ nothin’ I ain’t heard before. It was your sweeping judgement of your fellow Christians that I take exception to. While you two were chatting, did He happen to mention that He didn’t like you proclaiming who is and isn’t part of His flock? I’ll remind you of your quote:

I’m certain He had something to say about that.

I’d feel condemned if I believed in your quaint little religious history book. As I don’t, I don’t.

No, not really. You’re a Jeezer - it’s to be expected that you witness. I learned long ago not to take it personally.

You are, but it doesn’t bother me.

Don’t apologize to me - apologize to your Christian brethren who you insulted by saying they couldn’t be Christian.

Not a bad idea - God might not like it.

Esprix

172

Hm, I like it when everyone else has already made a lot of the comments I would have. :slight_smile: But I have a few more points.

Well, there go my hopes of a torrid fling with FriendofGod. :wink:

Eternal torture? Do you have any idea how long eternity is? Nothing besides eternal sinning could merit eternal punishment, and we simply cannot eternally sin. You truly think that if a person cannot believe in a God that makes little logical sense, they fairly deserve to suffer for eternity? What other illogical things must we believe in to save us from eternal torture? How are we expected to live our lives without using our logic to determine what makes sense and what doesn’t? Or do you think your God gets special dispensation and doesn’t have to make sense, just because He’s your God? Somehow I think that if you met someone who believed in a God that made no sense to you–one whose attributes seemed illogical and contradictory–you would think them rather silly. Would you let them off the hook if they said their God didn’t need to make sense to you, that it was your fault that you didn’t understand? If you think, say, Mormonism makes no sense to you, will you accept it as True if they tell you “it’s not really illogical; it’s perfectly logical, I just can’t explain how, but trust me, it is”?

As soon as you answer my objections to your parameters; one is illogical and one is false. I cannot create a logical, sensible theory from those premises.

I mean you say God must punish us. However, then you say that He doesn’t necessarily do so. Therefore your premise that God must punish us is false.

Not true. Look at a seed turning into a flower; add energy (sunlight) at it becomes more complex. Go thou and read a basic science textbook. Entropy only prevails in a closed system.

Well, if you’d put some energy into it, i.e. actually clean your room, your room would become cleaner. But we are talking about basic science here, not the state of your room. Your room getting dusty is not “degenerating”, as you put it.

Then perhaps the punishment for not loving God should not be Hell.

Look, FoG, you’re having a lot of trouble here because you appear to not understand the basics of logic. You insist that the things you believe are True, and therefore the logical contradictions do not bother you. However, you need to accept that if someone has yet to accept that something is True, the fact that a logical contradiction exists makes them extrordinarily disinclined to so. If someone said that God told them that homosexuality was OK, you’d argue that it contradicted the Bible therefore could not make logical sense with previous scripture. Yet when you find illogic in scripture, you insist that the illogic does not exist. Do you see why anyone who has not yet accepted scripture as True will refuse to accept it when it is illogical, just as you would refuse to accept anything that was illogical that you have yet to accept as True?

[PS–Thanks, Micro Furry. :slight_smile: ]

173

FoG:

David:

Thanks a bunch, David. There goes another keyboard.

174

Yeah, I liked that remark too. snicker :smiley:

175

Esprix, my friend, your last post is, unfortunately, reinforcing a stereotype, which I don’t think you are looking to do. Hey, FoG has judgmental beliefs, and you and I, and Gaudere and David and most of the rest of the planet, have suggested to him where his beliefs are in error. He’s offered his apologies to you for offending you. The decent thing to do is not to have a hissy fit about what he didn’t do, but to accept them and calmly show him what else he needs to do to make recompense (i.e., excluding gay people devoted to God in Jesus from the title Christian – he needs to rethink his premises).

Gaudere:

"If"??? I know I’ve been away for a while, but c’mon! Your memory’s not that poor!

BTW, what I did say was not that “homosexuality is OK” but that it is not necessarily sinful. If Esprix decided to go out for a wild weekend of barebacking, came home HIV+ and infected Dr. BF, I think he’d be sinning. (Hey, I try not to be judgmental, but everybody has opinions!) His committed relationship, I am certain, is not. Your salvation is not determined by where you put your penis, but where you put your heart.

On to the parallel track: evidence for or against God. AvalonGod and the chief deity of the First Church of David B. are debating this, which in itself is a trifle ironic. :slight_smile:

My suggestion would be that a universe characterized by the immanence of God and one without His presence would be difficult to distinguish using totally logical means. Though He occasionally succumbs to the temptation to “r’ar back and pass a miracle,” His normal work is done through the physical laws of the world He created (that’s what makes them the laws!) and through His people in it. The unlikelihood of a particular event (you name it: the Flood, the Exodus, the Oil Cruet That Never Went Dry, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Taco with Jesus’ Burning Face, whatever!) is not post facto disprovable (or provable) from the general application of the laws, any more than Newton’s laws “prove” that something can be accelerated from rest to 200,000 MPS. Einsteinian law, unsuspected until we studied subatomic particles at high speeds, indicates a singularity, an asymptotic relationship at 186,282 MPS. The laws of salvation, according to Christians, indicate a singularity on the First Easter. That JFK Jr., to take someone at random, did not rise from the grave does not prove anything about whether Jesus did. Granted that there is no “evidence” of God in the universe around us, and reasonable application of Occam’s razor therefore suggests His absence, what instrument would you use to detect God? This is not intended as flip: the proof or disproof of many phenomena requires reference to what will sense their presence. How might one show the presence or absence of a divine spirit as regards the universe? I don’t have an answer, nor to the best of my knowledge does anyone else. I’d suggest a “not proven” verdict in the interim. There is historical evidence, which we have dealt with in the past with mixed results. There is anecdotal evidence, which no skeptic subscribes to the validity of, except as it speaks of what the raconteur of the anecdote believes happened. What means can be used to produce objective evidence (for or against)?

176

Good thing, too. I have no idea where I put my penis. I must have lost it when I was very young. :stuck_out_tongue: (Have fun, Freudians.)

You know the answer to that as well as I, Poly–there’s no way to disprove all possibilities of any sort of God, and given your beliefs, any proof of God would only show that it could not possibly be God; your God will not prove Himself (avalongod would dispute this). So why do you ask?

177

Polycarp:

Well spoken post. Here are my replies:


I enjoy debating for its own sake, and frankly, given upcoming dissertation defense, being able to think quickly and defend (they don't call it a defense for nothing) one's position is a useful skill, and arguing unanswerable questions is a good way to do that.

quote:

~~~Granted that there is no "evidence" of God in the universe around us, and reasonable application of Occam's razor therefore suggests His absence, what instrument would you use to detect God?

this is the only part of your post I would disagree with. Although I agree it is reasonable to include "evidence" in Occam's Razor, Occam himself never mentions it that way. Occam's Razor simply states that if two theories explain a phenomenon (such as the universe) equally well, the one with the fewer assumptions should be accepted. IMHO either a universe with or without God requires numerous (though divergent) assumptions, and at the present time none of our theories about the universe are significantly accurate enough to really apply OR. I do sometimes suspect that we do have evidence, but misinterpret it. That was the point of some of my earlier posts. I have asked the same question myself (how to detect God) and wish I had the answer myself. We need an operational definition!
178

I concur, Gaudere, that I was simply rehashing a lot of previous threads in my discussion of the putative presence of God. I brought it up because it was obvious that we were coming at the question from numerous angles. Friend of God would presumably adduce the contents of the Bible in evidence for the existence of God. Rather obviously, you, David, and Esprix would laugh that evidence out of court. Avalongod and I seem to concur that there is sufficient evidence for an open-minded person to allow that God exists in some form or other, without buying into the weltanschaaung used by Friend of God. (I do to a very small extent; believing through my own experience that God is quite real and interested in personal relationships with humans, I can accept the evidence for Him presented in these historical documents. Which is kind of the reverse of the fundamentalist “proof.”)

I knew you would have some comeback on the penis line – but I wanted to use it anyway. Thanks for putting a humor spin on it! :slight_smile:

Avalongod, I believe we are saying the same thing in different ways: there is likely adequate evidence to draw the conclusion of God’s existence around, but we are not viewing it in the right way to see the proof. (Friend of God would, I think, disagree, but the rest of us don’t operate from the same basic assumptions regarding what evidence is adequate.)

To draw a weak analogy, may I suggest that over the past nine months I have made numerous references to my wife. Now not a one of you, prior to last weekend, had any tangible evidence that she existed other than my bare word. It might be reasonable to conclude from that that she did, but it is insufficient evidence for a skeptic. I might have some nefarious reasons for misleading you into thinking I had a wife when I actually did not, for example. Effective with this past weekend, there are a number of SDMB members who have met her, conversed with her, and would testify to her objective existence. But a thoroughgoing skeptic might doubt their evidence as well. She does, however, exist. :slight_smile:

179

Hmmm. I’m not convinced, Poly.

:smiley:

180

Still, we have ample evidence of the existence of “wives”; there are literally billions of them. Should someone tell me they have a wife, or a dog, or a green purse, or anything else that I have previously encountered and verified, I will assume what they are saying is true unless I have reason to doubt their veracity. Had we previously encountered all-powerful universe-creating Gods, the thought of one existing would not be such a stretch for some of us, although a thorough skeptic might be justified in doubting in any one particular instance. (i.e., even if “wives” exist, that does not mean you belive your 3-year-old when he tells you he has a wife.) A better analogy might have been you telling us that you have a ghost in your house; you say you do, but most of us do not think we have absolutely verified the existence of “ghosts”, you offer no objective evidence, and anecdotal evidence of these sorts of things tends to be quite unreliable. I think a skeptic would be inclined to doubt in this instance, although it is not disproved–and you do offer some evidence, and the existence of ghosts could be used to explain why our pictures sometimes fall off walls for no apparent reason (or some such).