JC found dead

[kang]

Originally posted by IROC
Worded the way you have it above, yes - I think it would take "faith" to assume that science would eventually, but surely, explain something that is currently unknown. It might not. We may never figure it out. The way I see it, though, when faced with something we don't understand, we have two options (maybe more, but for the sake of this discussion only two):

1. Use the scientific method to try and understand that which we do not know in the context of physical laws and processes that we understand and arrive at a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon. This is what scientists do every day and we have made alot of progress using this method.

2. Assume that it is too complex for us to understand and hence there must be a supernatural explanation (the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet comes to mind).

Since there has never been a case of number 2 ending up being correct, I think it is better for us to concentrate on number 1.

Maybe I am not characterizing #2 very well, but maybe you see my point.

I agree with this except I would use the word “trust” instead of “faith.”

Based on my past observations of science, I trust that it will continue to make progress, based on number 1, above.

Trust and faith are two different things.

[kang]

Originally posted by Z-man
Ok, so believing in something you don't see is illogical. And you won't adhere to that type of thinking.

Hmmm - the air we breathe is invisible. You cannot see air. Granted, we do have tools which can measure Oxygen levels in the air, and we have an idea of how atoms are joined together, but all this atom thing is speculation -- no one has seen an atom in person. Therefore, it must be illogical to breathe for you, so kindly stop breathing!

What I'm trying to say is this: my belief requires faith, but faith goes beyond religion. We all believe in things we do not see and often cannot explain. No matter how you believe the world came to be, it requires faith in some theory, whether the theory is based on a God creating the universe, or an evolutionary process.

-Z

Again, this is faith versus trust.

Your logic, jumping from “no one has seen an atom” to “it must be illogical to breath” escapes me. I don’t see the connection.

Yes, I have never seen at atom, but I do not believe there is a supernatural explanation for it.

Trust: Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


To me, believing in something based on faith alone is illogical. I believe atoms exist, even though I have never seen one, because I have trust (not faith) in the scientific process that has described them.

[kang]

Originally posted by Z-man
For me, there is spiritual evidence that God exists. Now just because spiritual evidence isn't necessarily physical evidence, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is hard for me to understand the point of view that there is nothing beyond the physical realm in this universe. There are way too many 'holes' and unexplained phenomenon that leads me to believe (there's that faith thing again), that there is definately someone more out there.

And along those same lines:


The short answer for me is "none of the above." The answer is that in my seeking to find the meaning to life, the universe, and everything, I have come to the conclusion that God was behind all this. I believe in God because I have concluded that He is the truth behind our existence.

As such, because I believe in God,
1. He has kept certain unexplainable things from mankind. And I look forward to findnig out some of these things when I can talk with Him in heaven. (My first question will be if He was joking with me all the times the street lights would flicker out when I drove/walked/rode underneath them...)
2. I know that death is not the end of my existence.
3. The only reason I am grateful that my sins are forgiven is because that forgiveness will allow me to commune with God.
4. I am a part of many groups - my church group, my friends at work, my Porsche club friends - so I don't have to be a Christian to be part of a group.
5. I certainly do not feel superior to others.
6. Because of God's unconditional love, I strive to love Him to the best of my ability. He loved me first, not the other way around. And to be loved is a need that all man has.
7. There are no absolutes. As far as morals are concerned, again, because of what He did for me, I try my best to do what He asks of me. (I think that's a different way of looking at the whole morality issue).
8. God does give me direction in my life, but again, it is because I believe in Him that He gives me direction, not the other way around.
9. "A need to be right." Well, the Bible very clearly tells me that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The Bible also clearly states that Christians are NOT perfect - that they sin and make mistakes every day of their lives. Thus, if I chose my faith because I have a need to be right, I have chosen the wrong faith, given that my faith shows me that I am very, very far from being 'right.' . (The key is that my sins are forgiven through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.)

Hope that sheds some light on why I believe what I believe.

And again, sorry for the long post,
-Zoltan.

Could you describe “spiritual evidence?” What does that mean to you?

It is hard for me to understand the point of view that there is something beyond the physical realm in this universe. Yes, there are lots of holes in our understanding of the physical universe. Many things that we didn’t understand in the past, we now understand. And I have complete trust that at least some of the things we don’t understand today will be explained in the future. For example, remember the old cliché that it is physically impossible for a bumble bee to fly? Well, they recently debunked that. They took a camera that shoots a gazillion frames a second, analyzed the wings, and realized that it IS physically possible for a bumble bee to fly. Of course, we always knew that, we just didn’t have an explanation. The thing is, they needed that special tool, and it didn’t exist until recently. I am sure that there are other tools we need that don’t currently exist, that will explain other things.

And there is no reason to believe that our brains are capable of understanding everything, anyways. String theory calls on 11 dimensions, and we will never be able to understand that. A monkey’s brain is incapable of understanding calculus. Perhaps (not just perhaps, I would think certainly is a better word) there is a higher form of math that is just as foreign to our brains as calculus is to a monkey’s brain, and we need that form of math to explain something. We will never be able to explain it, but that does not mean there is a supernatural explanation.

As to the list, I would think that, for you, religion meets numbers 1, 2 and 3 to a large degree. You do not seem to have needs number 5 and 9, but some other people do. Others, like 4, 6, 7 and 8 seem to be lesser needs for you that are partially met by religion. And yes, 6 is a need that most of us have. That’s the point. These are normal needs. We will all weight them differently.

[Flatbutt1]

Just for giggles, this link will take you to a site that discusses Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. While it doesn't give you an actual picture of an atom. It provides evidence that I TRUST relates to the atomic structure theory I studied in university.

http://www.llnl.gov/str/Scan.html

FWIW just thought I'd share something of what I believe

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Does it not take faith to believe that science will eventually be able to explain that which we cannot understand? I think it does.

I think you are mis-using the word, Rick, the subtlies of language. Faith is the ability to believe something for which there is NO material support. There is much material support for the proposition you put.

If changed the word "faith" to "confidence", your statement would be more conetxtual. And the difference is -if you then asked "why do you this have confidence?"- we could examine the ways science has improved out lot over, say the last 1000 years. We could look at to steel, alloys, to electrcity, to chemistry etc, etc etc and we could surmise that this sceintifc advancde will continiue.

If I asked you tho, "why do you this have confidence" (say, of the power or prayer) we could quickly dispose of the material evidence, as there is none, and get down to "because I believe so" . That is faith.


BTW- Akbar is an Arabic word for "Great". Ablett was a footballer, widely known as "God". So yes my sig is an irrwevrent swipe at religion- but not yours.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by adrian jaye
don't agree with you,

Do and have my prayers been answered, some of the time yes.

DO I know people in the same position yes.

God answers prayers in HIS time, not yours.

The power of prayer both singly and in a group is VERY powerful.
Personally I've come through some extremly tough times, and certain instances in my life the Lord (and his angels) have had my back, period.

I know this to be true, can I proove it to you or a non <><, no , of course I can't.

cos what ever explanation/scenario I give can probably be explained away, (as Z-man said to 99%), but the 1% is the faith, and thats the kicker.

Im not sure that this the intellectually honest or rigorous repsonse that IROC was seeking.

There is a good little presentation of the Amputee website dealing with "yes, no, wait" proposition of prayer to God- or a milk jug.

Your beliefs that prayer works, as you state, depend on faith. And faith, as we know, is the ability to beileve something for which there is no material support.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by adrian jaye
Exqeeze me

try reading the bible............

Now hang on. Adrian says "try reading the Bible" and gives us these verses.....

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

[b]Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Rick says"Just as a child does not get everything that they want (like candy for breakfast), humans do not get everything they pray for. God has a plan and knows what is best for you. "


Please help out a confused atheist. Which is it?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by stuartj
...a confused atheist...

Somewhat redundant.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Z-man
For me, there is spiritual evidence that God exists. Now just because spiritual evidence isn't necessarily physical evidence, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(The key is that my sins are forgiven through Christ's sacrifice on the cross.)

Hope that sheds some light on why I believe what I believe.

And again, sorry for the long post,
-Zoltan.

I shortened your post avoid reposting the lot.

I find your post really, really sad. I am reluctant to explain why because I would -quite correctly- be accused of attacking you personally. I have no wish to do this, as you are clearly sincere in your beliefs.

More broadly however, the notion of JC dying on the cross to atone for our sins. This is an idea we (of Christian background) grow up with. But when you actually stop and think about the idea of God sending His Son as man to be killed- sacrified, so that He (God) could forgive us (His creations) our sins. How does that actually work, the human sacrifice thing?

And then JC rose form the dead anyway, so he wasnt dead at all, so what did He (god) or He(JC) actually sacrifice...... ?

Its funny stuff. And if it was called "Islam" you happy clappers would laugh at it too.

[Jeff Higgins]

There was a moment when He was on that cross that Jesus sincerely believed His father had foresaken him. Imagine the weight of that thought, especially on some one who had no doubt whatsoever who God was, and what it meant to be foresaken by Him.

Jesus did predict His own resurrection, so it is easy to believe as you do. I mean c'mon, if He knows He is just going to wake up and be happy, what the hell kind of sacrifice is that? If God is simply planning on resurrecting the guy, how can we say He sacrificed His only begotten son? Just does not make sense; I agree. Way too easy.

That is where so many, in their rudimentary understanding of Jesus' story, fail to grasp what happened. Not surprising, really, from folks who only read it to look for what they perceive to be its faults. Your own stubborness drives your lack of perception, your inability to see, your inability to empathise with Christ.

The sacrifice was not His death. That's as far as folks like you look before rationalizing that it was nothing, because He knew what had to happen next. No, His real sacrifice was that for just a moment, He really thought God, His very Father, had abandoned Him and was actually going through with this sacrifice thing. He thought it was "real"; the crushing weight of that cannot even be imagined by us. God meant Him to feel that, to feel the full weight of His abandonment. How that must have hurt Him as a father to make His son go through that can only be imagined.

So, your oft-repeated, over simplified reasoning that attempts to minimize this "sacrifice" by claiming it wasn't one at all simply fails to account for the true nature of it. Once that is understood, the whole thing becomes very clear. And so very much more awe inspiring than any physical sacrifice could ever have been.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins



The sacrifice was not His death. That's as far as folks like you look before rationalizing that it was nothing, because He knew what had to happen next. No, His real sacrifice was that for just a moment, He really thought God, His very Father, had abandoned Him and was actually going through with this sacrifice thing. He thought it was "real"; the crushing weight of that cannot even be imagined by us. God meant Him to feel that, to feel the full weight of His abandonment. How that must have hurt Him as a father to make His son go through that can only be imagined.

So, your oft-repeated, over simplified reasoning that attempts to minimize this "sacrifice" by claiming it wasn't one at all simply fails to account for the true nature of it. Once that is understood, the whole thing becomes very clear. And so very much more awe inspiring than any physical sacrifice could ever have been.

Well, oft repeated? I dont recall mentioning before, but I could be wrong. Aside for the question of the validity of JC's sacrifice- the part I dont understand is how does his sacrifice atone for our sins?

The Father, the Son, The Holy Ghost. The Holy Trinity. The One.

Forsook himself on the cross, did he?

Just my rudimentary understanding.

[kang]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
There was a moment when He was on that cross that Jesus sincerely believed His father had foresaken him.

How do you know what was in his head? How does anyone (even his followers at the time) know what he was thinking? Did he tell them what he was thinking at that moment on the cross?

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Jesus did predict His own resurrection, so it is easy to believe as you do.

So how could he have possibly thought that god had forsaken him? These two items are contradictory.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by kang
How do you know what was in his head? How does anyone (even his followers at the time) know what he was thinking? Did he tell them what he was thinking at that moment on the cross?

The Gospels report that JC cried out "Father, why have you forsaken me" from the cross.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by kang
How do you know what was in his head? How does anyone (even his followers at the time) know what he was thinking? Did he tell them what he was thinking at that moment on the cross?

He cried out "my God, my God, why are you forsaking me??!!" with a depth of emotion that made it very clear to all witnesses just how he felt at that moment. There is much supporting discussion in the New Testament that delves into this, His apparent abandonment by His father.

So how could he have possibly thought that god had forsaken him? These two items are contradictory.

No they are not. While He had certainly predicted His own resurrection, there was that momont on the cross where He doubted it. He thought His father had abandoned Him, that possibly it really was for real. That he was wrong about the resurrection He thought was His. He doubted for a moment, and the entire weight of the world's sin really did land on His shoulders.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by stuartj
The Gospels report that JC cried out "Father, why have you forsaken me" from the cross.

That is true. Jesus felt forsaken by God because in order to atone for the sin of man, he had to take on the sin of man. That meant he felt the separation from God that we all live in on a day to day basis. Thus, his cry of "Why have you forsaken me?"

I think if you want to learn about prayer, you should go straight to the source. Jesus prayed to God on the evening of his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane. This would have been one of the most earnest and fervent prayers because Jesus knew that he would be arrested and crucifed in the next days. Did Jesus pray that it wouldn't happen? Well, in a way. The Bible says that Jesus asked that if this burden could be lifted from his shoulders that God would do so, but then he said "Not my will, but thine be done." THAT is the essence of prayer.

[stuartj]

Jesus, son of God, prayed in the garden of Gethsemane that "this cup should pass from his lips". Yet the Romans came for him that morning, and crucified him soon after.

The whole thing turns on the resurrection. That lies at the essence of Christianity.

Which brings us to the point of this thread. If, in the highly unlikely event these remains are proven to be JC, wife and family- then he didnt rise from the dead after three days, he didnt ascend to heaven. He's not coming back. The whole thing comes unravelled.......

[Jeff Higgins]

You are right, Stuart. The whole thing would come crashing down around us. That is precisely why nothing will be proven. That will not, of course, give anyone any cause to believe. It's a one-way street. The doubters will not be satisfied; they will continue to look. To no avail.

[stuartj]

If these remains cannot be proven to JC, there exists more ( or a) reason to believe JC was the Son of God?

I wish I could suspend my disbelief, I really do, so I could understand the genuineness with which believers can rationalise to support their beliefs. I lack the imagination to do this.

As IROC pointed out, the Emporer has no clothes.

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
snipped...but then he said "Not my will, but thine be done." THAT is the essence of prayer.

And there it is. I try not to chime in much on these discussions but this one has been extraordinarily civil.

ND has quoted what may be ,IMO the key.

The "surrender" (for lack of a better word) of one's fate to the control of a greater power. I guess its the equivalent of saying"Man this stuff is out of MY control so I guess I just have to deal with whatever comes". But also accepting whatever comes with a trust/ faith that all will be well.

Yes/No/Maybe?

[kang]

Originally posted by stuartj
Which brings us to the point of this thread. If, in the highly unlikely event these remains are proven to be JC, wife and family- then he didnt rise from the dead after three days, he didnt ascend to heaven. He's not coming back. The whole thing comes unravelled.......

Say they don’t “prove it” beyond a shadow of a doubt. Proof like that would be hard to come by. There will be some probability that it’s true, like 90/10 or 50/50 or 10/90. But even this, the possibility that it is true, casts major doubt on the resurrection. There would be an X% chance that those bones are his, and that he was never resurrected.