Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Santa Claus is like GOD & Christ 2: he rewards the GOOD and gives nothing to the BAD


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 77 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 1:34:08 PM PST
Bubba says:
Clarissa says: "God is not revealed by evidence, but by belief in Him."

The exact same thing is true about Big Foot, UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 1:35:40 PM PST
Doog37 says:
See now Bubba I have to disagree, many people believe in Bigfoot and the like, but even in beleiving they did not reveal themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 1:39:15 PM PST
No-one would be interested in the examples you chose, so "the same would not be said".

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 1:40:12 PM PST
See my reply to Doog37 at 1:39 PM.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 1:55:49 PM PST
Art Franklin says:
"The exact same thing is true about Big Foot, UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, etc. "

I'm not sure these are fair examples. Jane Goodall believes in Bigfoot for example, and I've talked to people that swear they've seen unexplainable flying phenomena, and Santa Claus has left me toys. Meanwhile Jesus has left zero evidence in recent centuries.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 3:15:09 PM PST
Bubba says:
I see what you mean.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 6:54:17 PM PST
Spellman says:
@BW,M
Has marijuana been legalized in Florida?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 6:59:24 PM PST
Spellman says:
@Z
That explains it...I've always wondered why I wake up Christmas morning to a shoe full of coal!

Probably because living in an entitlement society, you can't pay your heating bill.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 7:02:31 PM PST
Spellman says:
@Clarissa
God is not revealed by evidence, but by belief in Him

Only partly true. Theism is a coherent conclusion based on many lines of evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 10:29:12 PM PST
What are these lines that do not pivot, however tenuously, on belief?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 12, 2012 10:43:54 PM PST
"Theism is a coherent conclusion based on many lines of evidence."

Which lines of evidence?

Posted on Dec 13, 2012 6:57:28 AM PST
Spellman says:
@Michael and Clarissa
From what angle do you wish to discuss this? The metaphysics of Aquinas, or more contemporary arguments from Wright, Swinburne, Peacock, or Plantinga?
Faith is NOT belief in something for which there is no evidence. It is trust or confidence in something or someone, for which there is always evidence of one sort or another. One can discuss the points of the fine tuning argument for hours. The bulk of evidence is of a historical nature for which empirical analysis has no place. The rigors of scientific investigation are necessarily for open system data analysis as in history, culture, and praxis. Science doesn't declare "there is no God". There is coherence between science and theism. Naturalism, which itself can be considered a "quasi" religion declares there is no God and itself is in conflict with science. Science keeps the declaration of a spiritual entity as an explanation for reality out of its purvue. Empiricism limits itself to the observable. This is inadequate. Generative mechanisms abound to account for the "nature" of our reality, whether actuated or not, observed or not. The knock on the historical evidence, specifically the synoptics, has been the lack of good interpretive works that have been unduly influenced by the post-reformist, post-enlightenment, post-modern materialistic western civilization. Specifically, fundamentalists have promoted an unwarranted literal interpretation to major themes in scripture that are not only inconsistent with what we understand about nature currently, but are inconsistent with the intent of the authors of those writings. Translation of ancient literary works not only requires a good lexicon but also a translation of the culture and praxis of the authors.. This was never adequately done until the past 40-50 years because the indepth studies of multiple parallel literary works from the time period had not been completed or even started. The cosmology of Ancient Near Eastern cultures was functional in nature, not materialistic. The Genesis tale is not a description of the material beginnings of the universe, but a description of its functional ordering. Genesis has no conflict with a scientific explanation of the universe because it does not address that premiss. Looking at these works from the worldview of the peoples involved in their writting erases one area of misunderstanding and conflict in study. One the data points evaluated are understood properly, proper analysis can be applied. So, there are many avenues from which the argument for a creator,sustainer, God can be made. The particular subject matter has to be clearly understood from both its limitations and proper analytic methods.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 8:15:50 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Spellman says:

[The Genesis tale is not a description of the material beginnings of the universe, but a description of its functional ordering.]

You're right. The Book Of Genesis is mythological. That does not mean however that it is not true.

Mythology uses allegories and metaphors to explain great truths in a symbolic rather than a literal way. In some cases it may be very difficult or even impossible to explain those truths literally using language.

When it says God created everything in 7 days that means something. What it means I don't know but that would be interesting to find out.

I agree with you also that questions about the existence of God are unrelated to science. That's not a question that can be answered by experimentation and looking at data. If people require that kind of evidence to prove something they can forget it in this case.

Which is fine except that they come into these discussions and keep asking about that kind of proof. This ultimately leads into inane and meaningless debates that can never be resolved.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 8:24:31 AM PST
Zaplightning says:
@Spellman

It must be because the rich, mean landlord turns off the heat and snickers while the elderly and children freeze.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 8:32:33 AM PST
"Science doesn't declare "there is no God"."

Very true. But then science doesn't declare "there are no leprechauns", either.

Science *does* give us models which explain how reality works... and, so far, those models, which range from the contents of a proton to the contents of the universe, show no signs whatsoever of the existence or need for a deity or deities. Those models do, however, give us explanations which show no "supernatural" elements, or the need for them, or any sign that such elements even exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 16, 2012 4:34:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2012 4:52:17 AM PST
Spellman says:
@Jeff
I would not say that Genesis itself is mythological, but represents the cosmologic style of those cultures, which was functionally centered. Cultures explain phenomena and retell stories within their own world view.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 16, 2012 4:51:12 AM PST
Spellman says:
@Michael
I would agree that science gives us excellent models to describe reality and we should all be conversant in those models, as said by St. Augustine of Hippo. I do not agree that science excludes the teleologic underlying generative mechanisms, simply because it is not designed to do so. Take some proposition "p". If we do not know for sure that "p" is incoherent then common intuition reveals that the testimony of generally reliable witnesses to the truth of "p" is evidence for its coherence. This is called an inductive argument. Something upon which science relies heavily. If "q" was observed under circumstances "u" and is done so reliably, then one can predict that given "u" in the future, "q" will be observed again. Induction from factual statements of coherence. The fact that these events are observable is the productive process of falsifiability which is crucial to empirical testing. Yet, there are phenomena that are beyond the observation of science that through induction are taken as truth statements,ie:dark energy. Historical events are in the same vein. One time events cannot be empirically tested, but can be tested through inductive reasoning to be truth statements. Key to the truth of credal statements is translating the meaning of words used in a theologic sense as opposed to their everyday mundane sense. Key to translating language is the translation of culture. This gives context to statements.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 16, 2012 7:45:14 AM PST
It isn't that science excludes the teleological, but rather that (a) a key component of the scientific method is methodological naturalism, and (b) that the rigorous application of the scientific method has given us models with demonstrable accuracy, models which show no signs whatsoever of the need for or presence of a "designer."

Given that science seems to operate just fine without the need for the hypothesis of the existence of a deity, what motivation have we for believing that one exists, much less that one is needed as part of our explanations?

"Yet, there are phenomena that are beyond the observation of science that through induction are taken as truth statements,ie:dark energy."

The reason that the concept of "dark energy" exists is that we *can* observe the phenomena... indirectly.

"Key to the truth of credal statements is translating the meaning of words used in a theologic sense as opposed to their everyday mundane sense."

What is the "theological sense" of word meaning, as opposed to just plain old "word meaning"?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 5:34:26 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Spellman says:

[Yet, there are phenomena that are beyond the observation of science that through induction are taken as truth statements,ie:dark energy.]

Yes so called Dark Matter and Dark Energy are indeed dark in the sense that scientists aren't sure if they even exist. Those are just terms they have come up with to identify a possible cause for effects they can observe but they don't know what the causes are.

Those dark things are their attempts to explain the forces that hold the galaxies together and cause the galaxies to move away from each other.

Those may be things that nobody can ever know.

God has 12 sons I believe and a universe was created for each son. Jesus Christ is God's son for our universe. He has 11 brothers. In that sense Christ was like the spirit of the universe in human form.

This is very interesting for me because twelve is a mystical number in the bible and many other places including the Mayan calendar which is based on astronomical phenomenon and the Earth's precession cycle. The Earth loses one day of precession every 72 years and 72 is a multiple of 12. One Mayan baktun is 144,000 days (12 * 12 = 144).

I should read a biography about Saint Augustine. I have some books written by him or about him but haven't read them. I did read his Confessions. That book is the byproduct of someone who felt a lot of guilt about his past although I suspect what really happened in his past is much less explosive than what people think happened.

I have this book: The Trinity (I/5) (Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century)

In that book Augustine apparently tries to explain what the Holy Trinity means. Reading this book, if I ever do, promises to be a mind bending experience.

I'm reading a book right now about Catherine of Sienna who claimed to have conversations with God which she dictated while in some sort of trance like state. I don't believe this however. I get the impression from this book that Catherine was a lonely and disappointed person and those feelings caused her so called mystical experiences. Not that she didn't really have those experiences but I don't think God caused them.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 10:46:05 AM PST
Art Franklin says:
"God has 12 sons I believe and a universe was created for each son. Jesus Christ is God's son for our universe. He has 11 brothers. In that sense Christ was like the spirit of the universe in human form. "

Why do you believe this? What basis?

Also, if Jesus is the son for our universe, is that why he has been missing in action for the last 2,000 years? Is he busy getting reborn to virgins in other intelligent cultures across the universe? Is he claiming to each species that they were created in the perfect image of God?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 1:54:52 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Art Franklin says:

[Also, if Jesus is the son for our universe, is that why he has been missing in action for the last 2,000 years ?]

I can tell by what you said that you have no respect for Christianity.

I already knew this anyway from other things you have said in the past. You're listed in the little black book I keep that contains the names of all the atheists in these discussions.

I usually don't talk to atheists in these forums. Talking to people like you can cause someone to become physically ill.

I just wanted to tell you this since you'll know why I don't answer your questions.

I only talk to people who have things they believe in and respect.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 3:06:02 PM PST
Art Franklin says:
Believing that God has 12 sons, one for each universe, has nothing to do with Christianity. Are Christians made physically ill by such beliefs?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 3:44:11 PM PST
Perhaps you should run your own discussion forum, where you control who posts, and what they post? That way, you'll never have to deal with people you disagree with... which seems to be your desire.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 5:11:36 PM PST
RE: You're listed in the little black book I keep that contains the names of all the atheists in these discussions.

Ha -- that's pretty funny stuff there.

RE: I usually don't talk to atheists in these forums. Talking to people like you can cause someone to become physically ill.

I think Michael's advice about constructing your own discussion forum is good advice for you. You're going to get sick a lot in the real world, at least on the subject of religion, so it's probably much better for you to construct your own.

Posted on Dec 18, 2012 8:23:05 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
zapatos espinados says:

[I think Michael's advice about constructing your own discussion forum is good advice for you.]

Yes there's way too many of you stupid atheists in the Religion forum giving your *&^%$ advice.

Anyway I'll add you to my black list.

Jeff Marzano
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  77
Initial post:  Dec 7, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions