Sincere question for Christians:

here's my 2 cents on that snood.

Faith plus reason = belief.

I have belief too. So I have faith too. My faith is not religious faith, but I'll admit I have faith in some things (actually I don't, but that's a long story about belief in absurdity (belief without faith) and the dead-end street that is, and the resulting replacement of my true belief in absurdity with a pursuit of knowledge, however limited, to confirm my suspicions of absurdity ruling all). So long story short: all is absurd, but since that's not an interesting answer, I'll lie and say that I have faith in my observations which leads to a belief based on my reasoning about my observations.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

here's my 2 cents on that snood.

Faith plus reason = belief.

I have belief too. So I have faith too. My faith is not religious faith, but I'll admit I have faith in some things (actually I don't, but that's a long story about belief in absurdity (belief without faith) and the dead-end street that is, and the resulting replacement of my true belief in absurdity with a pursuit of knowledge, however limited, to confirm my suspicions of absurdity ruling all). So long story short: all is absurd, but since that's not an interesting answer, I'll lie and say that I have faith in my observations which leads to a belief based on my reasoning about my observations.

I hear you - and I can concur on some of what you say about belief being a synthesis of faith and reason. But, I think it merits acknowledgement that one man's reason is another man's folly. So I have to stand by my assertion that faith and objective "fact" aren't ever necessarily in synch.

0 Replies

I don't know if I can admit that.

There are two lines of thought in my head.

1) you are right and one man's reason is another man's folly.
2) reason is infallible and differences in reason are due to different inputs into the reasoning process.

I don't know what road to take. So I can't acknowledge the first, but I'm not going to contradict it, either.

But I will gladly agree that faith and objective fact are not necessarily in synch. The religious have faith. The non-religious have faith (most do, in their observations). The two clearly disagree. So clearly one can have faith without the thing they have faith in being reality. Am I missing your point?

0 Replies

"Faulty Intelligence" seems to be the crux of the issue; coupled with self-righteousness it's the Kiss of Death for the gullible... and/or their neighbors.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

I don't know if I can admit that.

There are two lines of thought in my head.

1) you are right and one man's reason is another man's folly.
2) reason is infallible and differences in reason are due to different inputs into the reasoning process.

I don't know what road to take. So I can't acknowledge the first, but I'm not going to contradict it, either.

But I will gladly agree that faith and objective fact are not necessarily in synch. The religious have faith. The non-religious have faith (most do, in their observations). The two clearly disagree. So clearly one can have faith without the thing they have faith in being reality. Am I missing your point?

Not at all, sir - quite the contrary, I think you have grasped it as precisely as my poor powers of exposition allowed you.

Magus - "faulty intelligence" is a bit misleading, I think. It seems to presuppose some ultimate standard of factuality - and I submit that's a difficult concept to stand up in any context. Take, for instance the scenario of a dozen statisticians or economists in a room. Supposedly dealing with finite numbers and concepts, the chances are that no two of them will absolutely agree. It's much the same with the transcendental "truths" of the spiritual - every true believer has his own "truth". For that reason, I find it disgustingly presumptuous of those who casually cast high handed aspersions on the beliefs of others.

0 Replies

Hmmm... I think given enough time, the statisticians could come to an agreement. But the economists could not Smile

It's true that we shouldn't go in with an I'm right I'm right I'm right attitude. I'm not sure whether a you're wrong because of... you're wrong because of... you're wrong because of... attitude is ok or not. I'll reserve judgment again Smile

The thing that supports the latter attitude is that some things are very clear. Like our observations. So if somebody says 4+6 is 12 (I'm a math tutor), you tend to not credit their thought process. Because it's not. I might look at their thought process to see WHY they said that, to give me some insight and to give them some insight into how they think and how they can avoid this process in the future... but there are some things that just do not deserve consideration. Like 4+6=12. Of course you have to look at the soure, too. If one of my professors said 4+6=12 (or something a little more complicated so as to confuse the issue a little), I'd be more than happy to hear him out and see if I need to do some major restructuring in my understanding of math. So, this is why I am ambivalent on this issue. I would not mind criticism of what I have said here, though.

0 Replies

Not a christian here. Just an agnostic willing to conjecture on any line of reasoning, no matter how unusual or in disagreement with my beliefs. Thoughts on potential miraculous conception hypothesese...

Hypothesis 1: Areas in which God is operating cease to function under the laws of physics. Or perhaps his acts occur inbetween quantum instants so one moment the universe is one way, the next it is another without any actual motion. Thus at one moment the womb is empty (perhaps even of a prepared egg....) the next moment there is a developing egg in there. (or he could have just jumped ahead to a fetus). The Y chromosone may have been just a duplicate of the original used in Adam (thus free of mutation), or perhaps the entire DNA was constructed from scratch and preprogrammed for some purpose.

Hypothesis 2: Jesus was not actually a human being but rather a direct projection of God himself, manifesting in human form. Theoretically a divine being could exist in multiple places at a time thus allowing there to be a God and a Jesus simultaneously. While one of the more logical explanations it conflicts the most with biblical narrative.

Hypothesis 3: Mary, being immaculately conceived, was created with specially prepared eggs that would activate at the appropriate time. Perhaps she was created capable of self-reproduction.

Hypothesis 4: God, not interacting with the universe past the moment of creation, set everything up from the beggining of time. Organising every molecules path so that spontaneous mutations along the germ line would lead to a bloodline of self-reproducing humans. First the mary, (being female and easy to spontaneously be created) and then finally jesus. That would be spectacularly incredible for that degree of planning to occur. For this reason I like this one, it makes me think of God as a show off bratty teenage prodigy and that notion fits better than others.

Personally I'd go for number 4, but that's just me.

0 Replies

Well, we know according to the Bible, it speaks of the Holy Spirit as an actor in the conception. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit acted as the fertilizer, somehow providing the Y chromosome.

I would disagree with your Hypothesis 2, antibuddha, simply because we don't know much about Jesus' life from the time he was a baby until age 30 when he assumes his role as "son of God". Because of this, I 'think' it can be safe to assume that he was wholly a human being.

Just my input.

To break off from this discussion, I have seen recent news regarding James, who was believed to be the brother of Jesus. If you take the Catholic standpoint, you have to believe that Joseph never consummated the marriage. If so, then why did he marry Mary? We are told in the Bible that an angel told him to take Mary as his wife. Why marry a woman if you're not allowed to have sex with her? With this line of questioning, I would have to say that I think Joseph and Mary had a family after Jesus was born. Any input here?

0 Replies

Re: Sincere question for Christians:

Quote:

What exactly happened in Mary's womb? I mean exactly. At what point was the normal course of physics in the dna altered? Did Jesus have a Y chromosome? If so, when, in the fertilization process did it occur? Did God create a sperm and then make it appear from nothing in Mary's cervix? Or did He cause an abnormality in Mary's egg that caused it to undergo meiosis? I would appreciate any conjecture.

[/QUOTE]

I think the question itself, indicates a lack of understanding of the omnipotence of God. We cannot know how he did this. Any answer which claims that it was this or that way are at best just guesses.
Say for example God caused a room to light up. Did he reach down and turn on the light switch? Did he cause the filament in the bulb to become hot and glow? It would be foolish and arrogant to assume that God was limited to the methods that our minds are capable of understanding. And because he designed us with certain abilities and inabilities we should not assume that we are capable of discovering any evidence. Contrary to what some of the users of this forum think, Christians do not accept things on faith because we are intellectually challenged (pc for stupid). We just accept God as infinite.

IMO it's kinda like expecting an ant to understand photosynthesis.

Also, a minor point. Someone mentioned "self-righteousness". If one decides for himself what is right that is self righteous. If however, one decides what is right based on teachings that are thousands of years old that is not self righteous. This may be a good time to reassess who is being self righteous.

0 Replies

Santa

Quote:

Magus wrote:
My 4-year-old labors to BELIEVE that the department store Santa Claus he saw last month was the REAL santa... but he has expressed doubts... despite exhortations to have FAITH.

Smart little nephew, eh?

Just what are you alleging about Santa? lol

0 Replies

Iamdeb wrote:

I would disagree with your Hypothesis 2, antibuddha, simply because we don't know much about Jesus' life from the time he was a baby until age 30 when he assumes his role as "son of God". Because of this, I 'think' it can be safe to assume that he was wholly a human being.

Just my input.

Hi Deb, (I remember you from other thread). I personally doubt he was a virgin birth at all. But assuming that he was, it seems quite conceivable that a deity would be capable of pretending to be a normal human for 30 years if it wished.

Quote:

If you take the Catholic standpoint, you have to believe that Joseph never consummated the marriage.

Wow. They really haven't read the book of Matthew. <shrug>

0 Replies

I doubt there is any way that we can find out...but I don't find it too hard to believe that God could find a way to do it. What does matter is not how he was born, but how he conquered death. The latter is more important, and is the reason we have the cross as our "symbol" and not Mary with her legs spread! Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
If you take the Catholic standpoint, you have to believe that Joseph never consummated the marriage.

Wow. They really haven't read the book of Matthew.

Actually, the quote about Jesus' "brethren" is interpreted by Catholics to mean Jesus' cousins. The Aramaic word used could mean either one. James and John are referred as Jesus' brothers/brethren, and yet they are the sons of the Virgin Mary's sister, Mary of Cleophas. Also,s ome protestants believe these references refer to Jesus' half-brothers.

0 Replies

marsh_of_mists wrote:

Actually, the quote about Jesus' "brethren" is interpreted by Catholics to mean Jesus' cousins. The Aramaic word used could mean either one. James and John are referred as Jesus' brothers/brethren, and yet they are the sons of the Virgin Mary's sister, Mary of Cleophas. Also,s ome protestants believe these references refer to Jesus' half-brothers.

Actually I was referring to Matthew 1:25, I don't speak aramaic or even greek, however from the grammar in the King James Version it's quite clear in english that they had sex after big Js birth.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Actually I was referring to Matthew 1:25, I don't speak aramaic or even greek, however from the grammar in the King James Version it's quite clear in english that they had sex after big Js birth.

Why would it make a difference if they had sex after his birth? This still doesn't mean they had more kids.

0 Replies

Re: Sincere question for Christians:

dadothree wrote:

Quote:
What exactly happened in Mary's womb? I mean exactly. At what point was the normal course of physics in the dna altered? Did Jesus have a Y chromosome? If so, when, in the fertilization process did it occur? Did God create a sperm and then make it appear from nothing in Mary's cervix? Or did He cause an abnormality in Mary's egg that caused it to undergo meiosis? I would appreciate any conjecture.

I think the question itself, indicates a lack of understanding of the omnipotence of God. We cannot know how he did this. Any answer which claims that it was this or that way are at best just guesses.
Say for example God caused a room to light up. Did he reach down and turn on the light switch? Did he cause the filament in the bulb to become hot and glow? It would be foolish and arrogant to assume that God was limited to the methods that our minds are capable of understanding.

And because he designed us with certain abilities and inabilities we should not assume that we are capable of discovering any evidence. Contrary to what some of the users of this forum think, Christians do not accept things on faith because we are intellectually challenged (pc for stupid). We just accept God as infinite.[/quote]

Wouldn't it also be equally foolish and arrogant to assume that God is infinite, when there is no real proof to assume such a thing?

Quote:

IMO it's kinda like expecting an ant to understand photosynthesis.

Not a bad analogy, but I'd say it was more like an ant trying to see a painting from up close.

Quote:

Also, a minor point. Someone mentioned "self-righteousness". If one decides for himself what is right that is self righteous. If however, one decides what is right based on teachings that are thousands of years old that is not self righteous. This may be a good time to reassess who is being self righteous.

I would say that both are self-righteous. Just because something is old, doesn't necessarily mean it is right and also, if someone decides for himself what is right without even doing any research whatsoever, then yes, that person too would be self-righteous.

To not be self-righteous, one must consider all the facts, do research, verify that the facts are reliable. To be able to say you are right, from reading the teachings, you must do research to see whether the teachings are in the original form that they once took and why they were said.

I realise, however, that this is a little bit more work than most people are willing to do, seeing as they are busy with other things in real life.

0 Replies

theantibuddha wrote:

Actually I was referring to Matthew 1:25, I don't speak aramaic or even greek, however from the grammar in the King James Version it's quite clear in english that they had sex after big Js birth.

Okay. Sorry for the misconception.

In my Bible (the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation) that verse says: "He [Joseph] had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." I can certainly see how you got that impression, and I was quite surprised to read it myself. However, there is an editor's footnote in my translation saying: "the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsilbe for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it." So take from that what you will. It's a minor point and I'm not going to debate it one way or the other.

0 Replies

marsh_of_mists wrote:

I can certainly see how you got that impression, and I was quite surprised to read it myself...<snip>... It's a minor point and I'm not going to debate it one way or the other.

Agreed.

0 Replies

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?"

Jesus had brothers and sisters. I dont understand how people call themselves christians and dont even know the bible.

I am not a christian but I know the bible better than most so called 'christians'.

0 Replies

Rancid wrote:

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us?"

While we're on the topic Mark 3:31 describes Jesus being visited by his mothers and brothers.

Quote:

I dont understand how people call themselves christians and dont even know the bible.

I don't get how people can believe that a book is divinely inspired and not devote an entire lifetime to studying it. If I found a single thing that was even minorly influenced by a deity I'd happily spend my entire life probing its secrets and consider it a life well spent.

Quote:

I am not a christian but I know the bible better than most so called 'christians'.

Join the club.

0 Replies

Sincere question for Christians:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know