Do you believe in miracles?

[wmrs2]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;560628]What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?



You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now



So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

God Wants Actions

Sorry Tom that I took so long to give you an answer. My K-board on the PC broke down. Here's your urgent answer.

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically. For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

[Thorne]

Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

So, if I believe that God wants me to beat my wife because she burned my dinner, that makes it okay? It seems self-evident to me!! (NOT!)

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind.

Certainly! Just look at the Crusades, and the consequences which we are STILL living with!

Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Funny, but I was once told by a seemingly intelligent preacher that most people don't have the understanding to interpret the Bible, and should rely on those trained to interpret its "truths." Where's the difference?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

Yes we certainly wouldn't want to confuse the ignorant serfs with the facts, would we? They might just decide that they don't really NEED us!
This kind of logic kept humanity in virtual slavery to religion for millennia. It's about time we eliminated it, don't you think?

[TomOfSweden]

God Wants Actions

And you base this opinion/truth on what exactly? Your intuition?

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

The point with academic studies, isn't to impress with big brain on internet forums. It is comparing ideas and learning from each other. You're rejecting this and replacing it only with intuition. I'm guessing that you're not a scholar. If that is the case, what you are doing is rejecting thousands of years of work, that you haven't read, and draw conclusions about the futility of their work. But you're not against studying are you? You read the Bible don't you?

For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

So what do you need God for? If being good is self evident then religion can be rejected, right? I'd personally call it instinct or human nature. But that's just me.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I'm not going to argue. But I think the did what they did, not because they believed in God, but because of helping others made them feel good about themselves, and affirmed them. Humans are a helpful species. We're social, and we like to help those we can connect and empathise with.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Wikipedia is for laypeople. It's the whole point of it. So I think you'll do fine.

If truth is relative you need to give a context.

You wrote the bellow text:
"For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth."

Is the Bible seeking to enlighten mankind? Is this relative? If the good Samaritan would have done it anyway, what did he need God and the Bible for? How has he been enlightened if he had done it anyway? And then you go on to saying that "it is no fault or error in it", like a statement. As if it needs pointing out if it would have been true.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

Again, what does the "real scholar of truth" need God for? If he's taught parables that are self evident, he doesn't need them does he?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us.

So you're basically saying that God is irrelevant? If the existence of God isn't important, I assume that you don't care either way?

We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

But your facts wouldn't confuse a man with bad common sense?

edit: BTW. There is no need to apologise for not answering fast. I prefer you taking your time and making sure what you write is what you had in your mind and what it is you want us to understand.

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

A problem with parables is that they need interpreting. Which brings us back to the issue with truth. How can you possibly know that you've interpreted something correctly? How can you ever say that you know what God wants? How can you ever say that your actions are in accordance with Gods wishes?

[Ozme52]

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

[TomOfSweden]

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

[Ozme52]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant.

Well, not really because, unfortunately, while you look for a way to "know" and to prove what is "true" most people are

... arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth.

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

[TomOfSweden]

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

I think you're totally wrong. All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level. If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

[Ozme52]

I think you're totally wrong.

Perhaps. I will admit I had fundamentalist types in my mind as I wrote my comment. Those who out and out reject any possible interpretation of the world that implies that the bible isn't the actual word of God. Those who reject science and would prefer blind obedience... and who would force it on you if only they could.

All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level.

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

[wmrs2]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life. To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Take a bad experience one has in religious purists, for example. Would a person be better off to stay away from religion altogether? Should he change his mind about religion? Should he try to change religious behaviors with a different model? Should he become bitter? The bad experience will lead to another experience depending how one reacts (or doesn't react) to the bad experience.

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

That's the definition of faith. You have evidence for something and each time you check the result is the same. When you've checked enough times without any deviation it's safe to assume it'll always be the same, we call it faith. It's the same for scientific or religious faith. When I'm out walking I don't go running between lamp posts and grabbing them tightly just in case gravity might give way. I have faith in that it'll keep working. Even when I'm not watching. I'm a man of faith.

But you're leaving out the most interesting detail. How did you reach this conclusion that "God is absolute truth"? How did you work it out? How can you be sure that it isn't just in your head?

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life.

I didn't get this? Are you talking about how much evidence you need for faith in God?

To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Are you saying that "intuition" is the same thing as "self evident truths"? I wouldn't mind you explaining this. How do we know when a truth is self evident? My intuition tells me God doesn't exist. If intuition is self evident truths, then is my brain broken?

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

But Artistotelian logic can prove Christian theory of God has logical inconsistencies, (ie the Christian paradoxes). How do you reconcile that? How can the theory of God be true and false at the same time? How can God be good when there is evil in the world? Once again, what I think you're doing is removing the content of the "Scientific method" and "Aristotelian logic" and treating them as empty abstractions, because it looks good in a sentence. I'll grant you that it saves you the effort of understanding it, but doesn't add to your argument. You cannot apply the scientific method to something that cannot be measured. Some say this is proof God doesn't exist. Some say it's down to nonoverlapping Magisteria, but if that is the case your Christian faith cannot teach you anything about science. What you mean with "historical approach" I'm not sure? Hegelian dialectical reading of history perhaps? It's the standard method today of interpreting history.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

You'll have no argument there. But there's a world of difference between living your life as Christian because that's what sounds the most plausible to you, and having faith. One is arrogant and the other one is an educated guess.