And the supernatural and natural cannot be part of the same system?
Not while we use “the natural world” to refer to the systems we’re in. (For example, this planet and all of the things on it can loosely be considered to be part of “the system of Earth”, which is a subset of the system of the universe. There are things outside of the system of Earth but are still within the universe.)
What’s “unnatural” about the most-encompassing system in which we exist? I’m sure fish consider the world outside of the water to be quite strange, but it’s not genuinely unnatural.
To restate:
I don’t see why we should make a distinction between “natural” things and “existent” things? What things exist in the universe (in other words, the totality of all things that interact with me and each other) that cannot be considered natural?
What criteria defines the category of ‘natural’ and distinguishes it from the category of ‘existence’? I’m willing to consider such a category – but I need to know what makes something unnatural.
…and around we go.
Many thanks, Aide, but I believe I will politely step off the carousel before I begin to feel nauseous.
As a note, Diogenes, there is at least evidence for the Sojourn in Egypt, as there’s a fair amount of period Hebrew graffiti in some work sites.
Further, I find the theory that the oppression of the Hebrews could be related to the backlash against the Atenist revolution evocative; there are several theories that the Moses guy may have been an Atenist or a strong influence upon them, and the hatred that the Amarna changes inspired could, I think, easily spill over onto peripherally related groups.
Most of the plagues were common effects of a bad inundation year.
(Cite for the graffiti is, I’m afraid, the Discovery Channel; one of the Atenist theories is in Osman’s Moses and Akhenaten, which is . . . fairly dramatic in its claims, but I find at least a lesser version of his theory fairly convincing.)
I would just like to know what event you can prove categorically didn’t happen, as creation is not something that can be disproven, nor can the flood. The only way to do that is to say evolution is correct therefore this can’t be, which is the exact argument evolutionist say Christians are ignorant for using when a Christian tries to use this line of reasoning. It’s also interesting to me that the testimonies of the gospel writers is not evidence, although testimonies elsewhere are. Adam is a key figure in Scripture. He is described as the “first Adam,” the one who brought sin into the world. He made it necessary for Jesus, the “last Adam,” to atone for all humans, and then rise from the grave with the promise of complete redemption for fallen man and fallen creation. If Adam was just a myth, we would not be able to fully understand the work of Jesus. If Adam and Eve were not real, then we ought to doubt whether their children were real too, and their children…and then we ought to doubt the first 11 chapters of Genesis, and so on. All the genealogies accept Adam as being a literal person, so their children Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:9,10; Luke 11:50,51) must be real too. Jesus was descended from Adam, and it is impossible to be descended from a myth.
Granted one doesn’t want to fall into circular reasoning, but there are certain criteria that should be met. As for which belief to choose, the OP makes some pretty interesting statements, but I fail to see how they could be backed up. I lived more of my life in the world than as a Christian, and I believed in God, just not as a personal one, or one that could be known. My experience wasn’t that I was born into it, nor that I choose it. Most religions promote a set of do’s and don’ts, which is why I wouldn’t call myself a religious person. That said, my testimony wasn’t that I prayed, more of someone was praying for me. I was invited to a church service, and the things I saw there I’ve never seen anywhere in my life. I thought church people were the saddest group of people, I thought God was real but not close, I had friends and money, and a decent job, so I really didn’t need any crutch, and I thought evangelists just wanted your money. When I saw things that my analytical mind (which still hasn’t been turned off now that I’m a Christian, despite what some have inferred) couldn’t understand, I didn’t just have blind faith. But when I saw my life from the perspective of eternity, and how short it was, and when I, in my mind, knew how evil I was…ok, I must digress…I was standing with my sister in this service, and the minister is praying for people. I’m watching this, as I have never seen it before, and I was starting to feel bad. Actually, more evil. I was a soap-opera type of ‘christian’ before, in that if I needed something, Like I’d pray I wouldn’t be stopped for speeding, and that kind of stuff. But as the preacher is praying for people, I could feel myself feeling more and more evil. I said to my sister I feel like Luke Skywalker did in ROTJ when he felt bad for going to Endor as he could ‘feel’ Darth Vader, as I felt out of place, as I was feeling like I was “pure evil” and my sister said she knew. Then she prayed in her mind that if God was real, He’d show her. Then the preacher came over and started praying for my sister, and that’s when I saw my life from an eternal perspective, and how bad my sin actually was. Then I started to study. As things would happen, or I’d hear about things at church, I’d study. The verse that came alive to me was 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Cor. I thought that the Holy Spirit wanted to fellowship with me, and that was the first time I thought God was close. But I wasn’t born into it, nor have I turned off my mind.
I do have to laugh though when I see a post like ‘It’s a lie’ then see the response to it, as being a bad post. In the other thread, a poster posted ‘It’s a lie’ but he was directing it at Christians, so therefore his post was explained as meaning there’s no way I’ll change my mind, so it’s easier to post that. I love the different lines of logic used here.
So back to the OP, my advice is to read, study, and search for truth. Honestly I believe if you search for truth you’ll find it. I never ignore what people say if I disagree, as I believe God’s word is true, and I will search to find out what is said. If I say I believe in the Bible, yet I think it’s ok to murder, then you wouldn’t want to follow my religion, as it doesn’t make sense. For instance, Biblical contradictions was an area that I studied, and found that the original version of the Bible is a much better version, unless I cross ref different translations and get a broader prospective. When Paul talks about his conversion experience with Jesus, there is a contradiction in the KJV, not in the NIV nor in the Greek.
In all major religions, the followers strive to rid themselves of sin through various practices. They may pray in a prescribed way, do various good works, deny themselves legitimate sexual pleasure, follow dietary restrictions, lie on beds of nails, etc. The uniqueness of Jesus is shown in His statement, “The Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins.” No other religious leader has ever made this claim. Jesus Christ alone can wash away every sin anyone has ever committed, because of what He did on the cross. By paying the penalty for our sin, He can release us from the torture of guilt. We cannot do anything in the way of religious works to wash away our sins. Forgiveness is a free gift of God (Ephesians 2:8,9).
You CAN prove a negative. If someone says that my house burned down and I can point him at my intact house, I just proved my house didn’t burn down. Likewise a worldwide flood would leave evidence which is not there. Therefore we can be pretty darn sure that a flood did not occur.
If you don’t agree with that then help me get some insurance money for my “burned down” house, which of course the insurance company can’t prove didn’t burn down.
I’ve thought something similiar before. If there were a God, then certainly His truth would be so evident that there would be a clear majority of people who would follow it. But if you look at the members of world religions and you’ll see that there is no clear winner. Christianity has the most members, but it’s only 1/3 of the total.
I would think the “correct” religion would have like 90% of the population. The truth would be so convincing that only someone with a mental impairment would believe something else.
And if you look at populations vs. geographic areas you can see that what someone believes is most strongly related to where they were born rather than which religion might be most “correct”.
Well, technically, you can only strongly infer the house didn’t burn down. After all, the magic house fairies could have visited you in the night and rebuilt your house exactly the way it was before…
Barry