Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
pavilion103 said:
One of the poorest and most commonly used arguments against the existence of a God is:

"Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "Why can't God prevent war?" (as mentioned just before)

It is important to understand the concept of free will (as mentioned in response).

Either

1.
We are given a free will.
Maybe most important because it allows us to love. Love has to be a choice not something we are forced to do like a robot.
If we have a free will we are able to "choose" to do good. But then we can also "choose" to do evil.
Living in this world where we interact with one another, the bad choices of some will impact the innocent.
This is unavoidable.

2.
We are given no free will.
We are essentially robots.
God makes us like what he likes. Worship him without choice. We love him, but not by choice.
We have world peace. Not because we are peaceful. But because we are puppets with no choice to do otherwise.
There is no love. We cannot choose it. We are forced to love.

This is a dilema.......

"This isn't fair for the innocent" some may ask.

As mentioned above, because of free will the problems of this world are unavoidable.
God does not promise justice in this world.
But He does provide ultimate justice though in eternity, where "good" wins the day!
He loves us so much that he has provided a way out (at great cost to him).
And what is best this free gift is open to ANYONE who wants to accept it. There is no exclusivity.
Click to expand...
Spot on Pavilion!!!

I'm not privy to the complete set of rules for this "test", but it seems we can also be thrown "curved balls" and part of the test is how we deal with them.
 
cynic said:
Your recollections of Christ are very different to mine!
What's wrong with just sharing some wise and peaceful teachings? (Isn't that what Christ would have wanted?)
Do you really need to claim that one religion holds a monopoly on truth?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I'm not sure what Christ yours is!
Christ never intended to be a "wise and peaceful teacher".
He made the claim that He was the Son of God and the ONLY way to God.
Read the gospels. These claims are unmistakable.

Christ did present some brilliant sermons on ethics (e.g. sermon on the mount), but the entire purpose of his message was salvation through rependence. Seriously read the gospels in entirity and find out for yourself.


Of course I'm going to claim that Jesus Christ has the monopoly on truth.
Every religion and philosophy is a truth claim.
Trush IS exclusive.
1+1 = 2. 1+1 cannot equal 3 or 4.
Is a professor who marks an exam paper allowed to hold a monopoly on the truthful answer? Or does he have to be tolerant and tick all or most answers as correct?
By definition truth is exclusive.
What the truth is is another question... but whatever it is, it is exclusive.

Also, all religions cannot be truthful.
This is because they are contradictory.
Either 0 of them or 1 of them can be correct.
E.g. Christianity claims Jesus was the son of God, Islam claims Jesus was only a prophet and not the son of god.
He can't be both 1) the son of God and 2) not the son of God. - it's impossible.
E.g. Juasiam believes in 1 god, hindism beleives in many gods
There can't be both 1) 1 God and 2) many gods - it's impossible.

There can be similar elements in religions as there are in many things.
But two contradictory/conflicting entire belief systems cannot both be correct! This is obvious.
It's either 0 or 1 that is the truth.
 
pavilion103 said:
With all due respect, I'm not sure what Christ yours is!
Christ never intended to be a "wise and peaceful teacher".
He made the claim that He was the Son of God and the ONLY way to God.
Read the gospels. These claims are unmistakable.

Christ did present some brilliant sermons on ethics (e.g. sermon on the mount), but the entire purpose of his message was salvation through rependence. Seriously read the gospels in entirity and find out for yourself.


Of course I'm going to claim that Jesus Christ has the monopoly on truth.
Every religion and philosophy is a truth claim.
Trush IS exclusive.
1+1 = 2. 1+1 cannot equal 3 or 4.
Is a professor who marks an exam paper allowed to hold a monopoly on the truthful answer? Or does he have to be tolerant and tick all or most answers as correct?
By definition truth is exclusive.
What the truth is is another question... but whatever it is, it is exclusive.

Also, all religions cannot be truthful.
This is because they are contradictory.
Either 0 of them or 1 of them can be correct.
E.g. Christianity claims Jesus was the son of God, Islam claims Jesus was only a prophet and not the son of god.
He can't be both 1) the son of God and 2) not the son of God. - it's impossible.
E.g. Juasiam believes in 1 god, hindism beleives in many gods
There can't be both 1) 1 God and 2) many gods - it's impossible.

There can be similar elements in religions as there are in many things.
But two contradictory/conflicting entire belief systems cannot both be correct! This is obvious.
It's either 0 or 1 that is the truth.
Click to expand...

Pav, I have read several versions of the gospels. I distinctly recall accounts of Christ claiming to be the son of man and also of Him telling his apostles that they are gods!
Whilst I'd agree that the absolute truth is very likely to be definitive, I've yet to encounter one religion that can claim to be sufficiently devoid of contradiction to support their claims to sole ownership of the truth.

I am not certain which version of the new testament your flavour of Christianity studies, but I have found contradictions in the versions that I've examined to date. (Please note that I am not debunking Christ for whom I have much admiration!)

In this discourse, I believe that we are both deviating from one of Christ's key teachings. Do you know which teaching I am alluding to?
 
No I'm not sure which teaching?

I gospels that I read included those written by two eye witnesses who went to their death because they refused to renounce that Christ rose from the dead. If I'm going to take anyone's word it will be the eye witnesses who were in a position to know 100% whether the resurrection was a lie or not, and they died for that belief. Powerful!
 
pavilion103 said:
Not sure how that is contradictory to this conversation?

Seems like a reasonably civil, sharing of views.
Click to expand...

Yes! I like to believe that we are being civil in our exchange.

My concern is that if a person is desirous of having their right to a chosen Christian belief system respected, then, to my understanding, the "do unto others" rule requires that I respect the right of others to choose their personal belief system (regardless of whether said belief system includes or excludes the existence of divine beings).
 
cynic said:
Yes! I like to believe that we are being civil in our exchange. My concern is that if a person is desirous of having their right to a chosen Christian belief system respected, then, to my understanding, the "do unto others" rule requires that I respect the right of others to choose their personal belief system (regardless of whether said belief system includes or excludes the existence of divine beings).
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I respect your free will and your right to have whatever belief system you choose.

Does that mean that I can't present my view and encourage you to investigate? No

Does it mean that some who believes to have the truth can't share that with others? No

Does it mean we should be civil and accept that at the end of a conversation we can still disagree? Yes
 
cynic said:
It's a little over twenty years since I last had cause to read that passage and I don't have any of my bibles handy, so in lieu of a more authoritative reference, I offer the following internet link:
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-10-34/
Click to expand...

The words is "gods" with a "little g"

This is just one website's explanation below.
Impotant to look back to the Greek/Hebrew words and the context.
The context both in relation to culture and any Old Testament passages that Jesus quotes from.

http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html
 
pavilion103 said:
The words is "gods" with a "little g"

This is just one website's explanation below.
Impotant to look back to the Greek/Hebrew words and the context.
The context both in relation to culture and any Old Testament passages that Jesus quotes from.

http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html
Click to expand...

It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and that explains it. I don't see a contradiction there.
It also explains why some judges like to be addressed as "Your Worship" which reeks of arrogance to me.
 
pavilion103 said:
Absolutely. I respect your free will and your right to have whatever belief system you choose.

Does that mean that I can't present my view and encourage you to investigate? No

Does it mean that some who believes to have the truth can't share that with others? No

Does it mean we should be civil and accept that at the end of a conversation we can still disagree? Yes
Click to expand...
+1

Extremely well put pav and I am very agreeable. I may have formed a misjudgment on account of projecting my own personal failing onto another.

It is of course important to remember that the rule applies to our thoughts, opinions and judgments of others, irrespective of public expression.
 
Chris45 said:
Thanks, and that explains it. I don't see a contradiction there.
It also explains why some judges like to be addressed as "Your Worship" which reeks of arrogance to me.
Click to expand...

That's great Chris!

I don't see a contradiction either, but my reason for being okay with the passage is quite different from yours.
(However, I am aware of at least one glaring contradiction in the New Testament of the bible, but I choose not to get overwrought by it.)

Incidentally, I don't actually recall any passage where Jesus stated that He was exclusively the son of God.

If either yourself or pav happen to have it on hand and could direct me to it I'd be most appreciative.
 
I will do a write up tonight or find a website that illustrates Jesus clearly identifying himself as the Messiah and son of God
 
cynic said:
(However, I am aware of at least one glaring contradiction in the New Testament of the bible, but I choose not to get overwrought by it.)
Click to expand...
Cynic, I'd be very interested to know the contradiction to which you are referring.

Many years ago a JW came to my house and I invited him in. We started discussing the Bible and I commented that it was full of contradictions (as many cynics do) and said there was an obvious contradiction in the very first book of Genesis.

I had it firmly in my mind that there was a contradiction in the order of creation of things but when asked to show him the conflicting passages I couldn't find them then and there and I became convinced that I must have imagined it.

I just googled it and discovered http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html which may have been the contradiction I had in mind.

Some would use this as a reason to dismiss the Bible as "a load of rubbish". I don't, but I don't take it as historically accurate either and I'm prepared to give the Bible a bit of slack.

burglar said:
You don't get to call him "Your Worstnips" until you are a lawbreaker and have been caught by an enforcer.
I think he has earned his arrogance! :p:
Click to expand...
LOL!!! :D
 
Chris45 said:
Cynic, I'd be very interested to know the contradiction to which you are referring.
Click to expand...

Again, it's been over two decades since I noticed it, but there are two distinctly different accounts of Judas' death and the reasons behind the purchase and naming of the "field of blood". If memory serves me correctly, one account was given by Peter and the other by John.

As for the JW their bible has undergone a significant amount of editing!
 
Top