I feel safe in saying that Raydog likely had breakfast 200 days, but that doesn't mean I'm prepared to prostrate myself on the alter of the everlasting waffle. I can be thankful for a gift without understand what store it came from and how much it cost. The Bible tells us that being thankful really isn't enough, and that life isn't the gift. The gift is eternal salvation and it can only be attained by specific acts. Christianity, ultimately, is goal oriented towards salvation... or fear oriented away from damnation, if you'd rather. The reason why we MUST worship is because there is work to be done. All I'm saying is, if you believe in an all powerful creator, he's not a very good boss. He made the office, he told us we had to work, then he installed an XBOX and disappeared for 2 thousand years. Now we've got middle managers all over with conflicting instructions based off of old memos which look suspiciously like they were written for a different company... you know, to stretch the metaphor. I'd have to think if the work really was important to him, he'd take a greater interest, is all. Honestly, taken for what it is, a church looks like a way to consolidate power on this earth, not the next one... so, yeah, I'm suspicious.
My point reduced, really is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There are lots of people telling me that they know how to save me, all of them are offering me the same types of proof, all of them are telling me that theirs is the only path... and ALL of their motives are suspect. Will the one true God please stand up?
mia, it sure is extraordinary to claim that Jesus paid for sins of the world. It does require extraordinary evidence. And he provided it. Jesus was resurrected to prove what He did was as foretold. Then he appeared to at least 521 people over the course of 40 days. We have those appearances recorded in multiple accounts by multiple people. The evidence is there. Eyewitness accounts are reliable, especially when you could very easily disprove the whole thing. The Romans produce a body and the whole movement goes away. Jesus followers were hiding until Jesus showed up in His body. The Romans could not produce a body because there was none. It is pretty simple really. I don't think God is obliged to communicate with you only as you see fit. He has communicated. If you don't accept it, He's God. Do you really think He feels like He has to do what you say?
My essential nature? It speaks to my line of reasoning regarding this issue, but I'm not sure what it says about my nature. Coelacanth, I don't mean to say that is the only thing Christianity offers, but it certainly is the reason for urgency. How can I be "saved" if there is no peril, implied or otherwise. Seriously, if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm open to the discussion.
Coelacanth, as long as we are being honest, I should say that I find your cherry picking of my posts to be extremely irritating. You use logic and reason to differentiate between offered criteria. Your argument seems to be that if a position can be reasoned in any manner which isn't arbitrary then it constitutes proof, which is a reflection of a poor understanding of the meaning of both the words reason and proof. If logic can not be a differentiator in the decision and referencing any other culture past or present represents "historicism" (and I can't get over the impression that you are saying education is an infection), then the only possible conclusion is to just wing it... and I can't fathom that is in any way more satisfying that what I am already doing. If your two points represent the core tenets of the New Testament then the bible could be a whole lot shorter. I love how gross over reductionism is only troubling to you when other people do it.
You don't like having your ideas challenged. But maybe Dionysus will take up your argument. I hope that he will.
I don't mind having my ideas challenged, I don't like being condescended to. You haven't responded to a single point Ive made, but you've managed to amp up the attitude at every turn. You are evasive and insulting and I'm done talking to you.
mia, how has Coel not responded to your points? From reading through this discussion, he has discussed the points you have made and asked for clarification. He has done that through a couple of questions that he has asked several times. You haven't responded to them, which you don't have to, just saying. Also, I don't see where you have asked him anything. I am just curious about the statement. Coel's style can seem a little condescending, I don't think he is trying to be, but I see how one might think it. Other than that though I guess I don't see the issue you refer to in your last response. I have a question for you. In one of your questions you mention written language preexisting Adam. Could you point me to something I can read which explains that statement?
To one of the original points, I fail to see why science and faith have to conflict. When someone creates a system, such as a program, or a product, like an automobile ... doesn't there have to be "order"? Order defines how things are supposed to work, it defines your basic laws and principles for that device or creation. Order would be the science of that creation. In the same breath, wouldn't God create some semblence of order in the universe he created? This would be what I "believe" to be science. Things like physics and chemistry ... they are bound to a set of laws that maintain structure and continuity. If you believe God created the universe, it's not a stretch to say he created science as well. If you, in turn, try to use science to define God, you would run into stumbling blocks, which brings me to the next point
