Miami Beach, Florida (photo from trekearth.com)
1. Mr. Jeff Jenkins has posted an article on Dinosaur and Human footprints.
Please check it out.
http://jeffjenkinsocala.blogspot.com/2008/04/hmmm-maybe-theory-of-evolution-is.html
As well via Jeff:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm
My latest from thekingpin68:
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2008/04/christianity-and-political-philosophies.html
Related to Jeff's article, I do not hold to Macroevolutionary theory, however...I have a couple of male friends who are sadly hairy. I really have to wonder if they did evolve from apes. Forget Hare Krishna...Hairy Christians?
Okay, now that George Harrison song is going through my mind, My Sweet Lord with Eric Clapton's interesting guitar playing.
Harry Christians, my sweet lord. Too bad the Harrison song is about a false lord.
2. I listen to BBC Radio Five radio on the internet occasionally. I have heard two funny comments recently which I shall paraphrase. One concerns recently fired Tottenham Hotspurs manager Martin Jol. The commentator stated that it was a shame that the stout Jol was fired as it was so close to Christmas and the season to be jolly. Also recently an older cricket analyst was complaining about one of the representatives of England's cricket team. This older man stated that this player did not smile and always walked around as if he had piles.
3. In the 1990's, I went to the free 90 minute Tom Vu 'semina' twice for some laughs with friends. On one occasion Tom suggested that one look for a real estate seller who has recently had a heart attack and then make a low ball offer.
4. I try to take care of myself physically. I have flown to Florida to receive laser treatment for vitreous floaters. I have met with several ophthalmologists and asked for advice. I have had two sleep apnea related surgeries and will soon likely be receiving the third one.
However, I completely missed the boat with skin care. Perhaps thekingpin68 is a dumb macho man? I reasoned that with the hours and hours I spend by this computer, that the hour or so a day I spend outside in the often overcast Lower Mainland could not cause me skin problems. Wrong, wrong, wrong, Red Mole Man. I had four sun caused red moles growing on my face that had to be burned off this week. I feel kind of stupid, but I am glad they are gone. I do not need skin cancer to go along with my other very annoying ailments.
Red moles are kind of suspicious I guess, and one was broken open for awhile. Imagine if the red moles were somewhere else, and not on my face, perhaps I would not even be able to see them. So now every time I go outside with any sunlight I where 55 sunscreen.
This is yet another lesson that my finite nature lets me down. With our weather I assumed I only needed sunscreen in the sunniest spring/summer days, but how wrong I have been. I am glad that the Lord led me to a good MD.
5. Speaking of which, as I stated in thekingpin68 comments, my MD who is an excellent one, told me after burning off my red moles and discussing my sleep apnea problems, that we used to be able to hold our breath longer under water when we were ducks!
He then quickly backtracked, and stated, we were not ducks, but through evolution we used to be able to hold our breath under water for long periods of time.
I was thinking...you believe that stuff? Where is the empirical proof that 'Homo sapiens' used to be able to exist under water for a long period?
Quack, Quack, Quack evolution is right off the track.
6. Being positive is only meaningful in the context of being realistic. Not a satirical thought, but meaningful I hope.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to my controversial post!
Oh, MAN, that video made me cringe! Wow...
One time, I was pitching in softball, and the batter hit the ball, and it hit me right in the groin. I went down. But a baseball in the head? wow! I heard about someone that was killed by a softball hitting them in the head, and a baseball could be much worse.
I have a couple of male friends who are sadly hairy. I really have to wonder if they did evolve from apes. Forget Hare Krishna...Hairy Christians?
LOL!
This older man stated that this player did not smile and always walked around as if he had piles.
LMHO!!!
On one occasion Tom suggested that one look for a real estate seller who has recently had a heart attack and then make a low ball offer.
Wow, that's terrible! But funny!
Red moles are kind of suspicious I guess...
That explains your title, of course. When I first saw "Red Mole Man" in your title, I immediately thought of the Fantastic Four's enemy, Mole Man. I thought maybe you had turned into some sort of super villain! LOL! Of course, I'm just being silly, but hey...your blog site is about satire, so why not?
With our weather I assumed I only needed sunscreen in the sunniest spring/summer days, but how wrong I have been.
Yeah, I've heard that "cloudy days" and such can be deceptive. You may not think that radiation is coming down, but just because the sun is not shining brightly, doesn't necessarily mean those rays are not reaching you.
...my MD who is an excellent one, told me after burning off my red moles and discussing my sleep apnea problems, that we used to be able to hold our breath longer under water when we were ducks!
I found a duck joke:
A man is driving a pick-up truck down the road with a bunch of ducks standing in the back. A police officer pulls over the driver, informs him that he is speeding and then asks him where he's going with all those ducks. The driver says that he doesn't know what to do with them anymore. The officer says, "Look, there's a zoo not far from here and that's where you should take them." The man thanks the officer and drives off with his ducks.
The next day the officer again sees the same pick-up truck barreling down the road. This time, though, all the ducks in the back are wearing sunglasses. The officer pulls the driver over and says, "I thought I told you to take those ducks to the zoo!" "I did," said the driver, "but now they want to go to the beach!"
Changing the subject a little:
ReplyDeleteMany people today discount the lifespans of those listed in Genesis, saying that its impossible that people actually lived that long. However, if the years in Genesis 5 are really shorter concerning men’s ages, then the days in Genesis 1 and 2 must be shorter as well, concerning the Creation account. Contrarily, if the days in Genesis 1 and 2 are actually thousands or millions of years, then the years of men’s ages in Genesis 5 must be thousands or millions of years! Either way, those weak, compromising explanations don’t make sense.
Other ancient genealogies other than the Bible show long lifespans as well, during that time. The Sumerian Kings list mentions 3 kings that are said to have reigned 72,000 years each. Now, that is obviously exaggerated, but that very exaggeration makes more sense if people did live long lifespans back then. If they merely lived 70 or so years, such an exaggeration would make far less sense.
Back to my off-the-subject comments...
ReplyDeleteAgain, some people claim that ‘years’ in the genealogy accounts in Genesis are actually shorter, and ‘day’ in the Creation account actually means a far longer period of time. But Genesis 7:4 says, “Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” If days were actually thousands or millions of years in Genesis, then it must have rained without letup for millions of years! That would mean that Noah was afloat in the ark with the animals for millions of years! Ridiculous! On the other hand, if a 900 year genealogy is actually more like 90 years, then 40 days and 40 nights must only be a few minutes or less. This would mean that God flooded the entire world in just a few minutes! When you compare Scripture with Scripture, you can see how ridiculous these liberal, ‘higher criticism,’ miracle-doubting, Scripture-attacking, faith-resistant, Satan-inspired arguments really are.
Gen. 8:3,4 says, “The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” How could they be so precise and exact with time periods HERE, yet be so imprecise when reporting people’s ages, or the days of Creation, in earlier chapters? In other chapters, very exact measurements are given, as well. It’s ridiculous to think that they could be so particular and exact with dates, measures, etc., yet be so imprecise and inaccurate when notating the number of years that people lived, or how long the period of Creation took.
Here's another duck joke:
ReplyDeleteA duck walks into a bar and asks the bartender for corn. The bartender says "We have no corn, get out of here." So the duck leaves. The next day he comes back and asks for corn again, and the bartender says "I told you, we don't have any corn! Get out!" So the duck leaves. The next day he goes in again and asks for corn, and the bartender says, "For the last time, we don't have corn! If you ever come back, I'm going to nail those webbed feet of yours to the floor!" So the duck leaves. The next day the duck comes and asks, "Do you have any nails?" The bartender says, "No, of course not. Why would a bar have nails?" The duck then says, "Good. Can I have some corn?
Yet another duck joke:
ReplyDeleteThree guys died in an accident and went to heaven. When they got there, St. Peter said, "We only have one rule in heaven. Don't step on the ducks!"
So they entered heaven and sure enough, there were ducks all over the place. It was almost impossible not to step on a duck and although they tried their best to avoid them, the first guy accidentally stepped on one.
Along came St. Peter with the ugliest woman he ever saw. St. Peter chained them together and said, "Your punishment for stepping on a duck is to spend eternity chained to this ugly woman".
The next day, the second guy stepped accidentally on a duck and along came St. Peter, who didn't miss a thing, and with him was another extremely ugly woman. He chained them together with the same admonishment as the first.
The third guy had observed all this and not wanting to be chained for all eternity to an ugly woman, was very careful where he stepped. He managed to go for months without stepping on any duck. But one day, St. Peter came up to him with the most gorgeous woman he had ever laid eyes on. St. Peter chained them together without saying a word.
The guy remarked, "I wonder what I did to deserve being chained to you for all eternity"?
She replied, "I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck"!
That explains your title, of course. When I first saw "Red Mole Man" in your title, I immediately thought of the Fantastic Four's enemy, Mole Man. I thought maybe you had turned into some sort of super villain! LOL! Of course, I'm just being silly, but hey...your blog site is about satire, so why not?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the five comments, Jeff, really cool.
Yes, I was thinking of the Fantastic Four villain as well.
Yeah, I've heard that "cloudy days" and such can be deceptive. You may not think that radiation is coming down, but just because the sun is not shining brightly, doesn't necessarily mean those rays are not reaching you.
My MD stated that the ozone layer has been weakened. My wimpy skin cannot handle it.
Those must be Florida ducks from the first joke.:)
From my limited, but serious PhD research on Genesis and dates within, there is no consensus. There is a fair amount of figurative language used in Genesis 1 which makes it tricky to determine how much of the text should be taken as plain literal. I can accept a literal God creator and Adam and Eve, at least.
The use of days in Genesis must be taken in context. Hypothetically, a day could be one literal day, or it could be used figuratively. Even conservative Genesis scholars I have looked at admit that there is plenty of figurative language in Genesis 1.
That duck with the corn must have evolved into a human being.;)
She replied, "I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck"!
Classic, Jeff...bravo.
posted by A.L.
ReplyDeleteLet me take a step back and explain why I consider myself an agnostic. I think we can all concede that there is no empirical way of demonstrating the existence of God or an afterlife. If there was, we'd all be believers. I also think it's fair to say that most people have not spoken personally with God and therefore cannot know from personal experience alone that God exists. (I'm positive God has never spoken to me). So, for the average person (and I suspect all sane people) religious knowledge is based on neither empirical evidence nor first hand experience. Instead, religious people accept as authoritative the accounts of others who claim to have, in one way or another, communicated directly with God. This rather long list includes, among others, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, Joseph Smith: all people who lived and died long before our time.
Now think about how strange that is. If someone came up to you and told you that God had spoken to him and told him the secrets of the universe, would you believe him? Of course not. What if that person was someone you knew well and respected? I suspect that the answer for virtually everyone--including the most religious among us--would still be no. Yet many of these same people are perfectly willing to accept as truth the very same kind of claims made by long-dead historical figures about whom we know next to nothing.
And this might be easier to accept if everyone in the world followed the teachings of the same prophet. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of men (and a few women) who have claimed to have a direct line to God, and these prophets have given rise to all of the world's major religions (as well as countless minor ones). Clearly they can't all be right.
So pretend you were not born into any particular religious tradition. On what basis would you even begin to determine which of these people were lunatics and which were true messengers of God? What possible evidence would you use to evaluate the relative credibility of, say, Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an atheist. I think that our current state of knowledge about the universe leaves plenty of room for a Higher Power of some sort. I don't claim to know the answers to life's eternal questions, and frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone else really knows either. I do know that we as human beings have been blessed with the ability to reason, a gift which allows us (and compels us) to evaluate all the information reasonably available to us. In the absence of any empirical evidence or first hand experience, and with only questionable and competing authorities from which to draw any relevant information, I choose to remain agnostic. You may disagree with me, but can you really say I'm being irrational? If there is a God, I find it hard to believe He would penalize people for exercising their God-given ability to think for themselves.
posted by A.L.
ReplyDeleteLet me take a step back and explain why I consider myself an agnostic.
Thanks, Sean.
I have known Sean for several years. He is a good guy and a friend. He is not hostile!:) Hostile persons will not get through comment moderation unless perhaps they are very entertaining.;)
I think we can all concede that there is no empirical way of demonstrating the existence of God or an afterlife.
There is no empirical way of demonstrating the spiritual being known as God by material means. God is beyond matter. God would have to reveal himself within creation. Christian thought reasons God has revealed himself supernaturally and historically through Scripture. Revelation is the key within Christian thought and not empiricism, although the existence of historical scribes, prophets, apostles and Christ before and prior to his resurrection, was written down and could be reasoned as empirically witnessed by persons.
If there was, we'd all be believers.
Yes and no. We would all know there is a God, but would not necessarily worship him in the way he desires, if at all.
I also think it's fair to say that most people have not spoken personally with God and therefore cannot know from personal experience alone that God exists.
That is a given from most Christians that have studied Kant, for example.
The noumena realm is not available to empirical senses. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 393).
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
Biblically some persons have spoken to God and angels through revelation in the Bible.
(I'm positive God has never spoken to me). So, for the average person (and I suspect all sane people) religious knowledge is based on neither empirical evidence nor first hand experience.
God has not spoken to me either, but I have witnessed a seemingly demonised person. The demons spoke through the person after being called in Jesus name, and obeyed commands in Jesus name.
Instead, religious people accept as authoritative the accounts of others who claim to have, in one way or another, communicated directly with God. This rather long list includes, among others, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, Joseph Smith: all people who lived and died long before our time.
Within a supernatural realm persons could possibly communicate with God and his angels or Satan and his angels. Persons could also present fraudulent cases of spiritual revelation/contact.
Now think about how strange that is. If someone came up to you and told you that God had spoken to him and told him the secrets of the universe, would you believe him? Of course not.
I would consider it with an open-mind as I did the experience with the demonised person. With Christian thought many persons have experienced God and his angels over the Old and New Testament periods. The concept of God presented is essentially the same, although it progresses from the Old to the New Testament.
What if that person was someone you knew well and respected? I suspect that the answer for virtually everyone--including the most religious among us--would still be no.
That depends on evidence.
Yet many of these same people are perfectly willing to accept as truth the very same kind of claims made by long-dead historical figures about whom we know next to nothing.
That is why one should study these historical persons and develop cumulative evidence on whether or not certain religious persons and writings should be trusted. That is the only open-minded approach. It would be closed-minded to simply discount them, and ignorant to simply accept them.
And this might be easier to accept if everyone in the world followed the teachings of the same prophet. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of men (and a few women) who have claimed to have a direct line to God, and these prophets have given rise to all of the world's major religions (as well as countless minor ones). Clearly they can't all be right.
They cannot all be correct since they contradict each other on several points.
So pretend you were not born into any particular religious tradition. On what basis would you even begin to determine which of these people were lunatics and which were true messengers of God? What possible evidence would you use to evaluate the relative credibility of, say, Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha?
Evidence from Scriptural studies, theology, philosophy, archaeology with the use of logic and reason needs to be used.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an atheist. I think that our current state of knowledge about the universe leaves plenty of room for a Higher Power of some sort.
This higher power would have to evaluated from Scriptural studies, theology, philosophy, archaeology with the use of logic and reason.
I don't claim to know the answers to life's eternal questions, and frankly, I find it very hard to believe that anyone else really knows either.
There are different types of knowledge.
A definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it. Klein (1996: 113). I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
I do know that we as human beings have been blessed with the ability to reason, a gift which allows us (and compels us) to evaluate all the information reasonably available to us. In the absence of any empirical evidence or first hand experience, and with only questionable and competing authorities from which to draw any relevant information, I choose to remain agnostic. You may disagree with me, but can you really say I'm being irrational? If there is a God, I find it hard to believe He would penalize people for exercising their God-given ability to think for themselves.
God punishes persons for rejecting him by choice, which comes from a sinful nature. Persons are not penalized for thinking about God for themselves.
Thanks, Sean.
Russ:)
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteHave you heard about Ben Stein's new documentary about how those who question Darwinism are being persecuted? Pretty interesting! It's called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Here's the trailer on YouTube.
I haven't seen it yet - but my church will be doing a series on it soon.
Have a great week,
W
I read about it briefly the other day, thanks Wade.
ReplyDeleteThe clip looks interesting.
Russ:)
Thanks for the five comments, Jeff, really cool.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome!
Those must be Florida ducks from the first joke.:)
Yep, that pickup truck driver was probably what we would call a redneck!
Even conservative Genesis scholars I have looked at admit that there is plenty of figurative language in Genesis 1.
Figurative language?! [feathers ruffling] Methinks I detect a debate coming on! [motions for the Japanese referee to come over]
Well, when Jacob says that "Judah is a lion's whelp" (Gen. 49:9) and that "Dan shall be a serpent" (Gen. 49:17), he almost certainly is not saying that his sons are actually different species. Rather, he is speaking metaphorically. So if you're talking about things like that, I agree. Or, when God says to Abraham, "I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore" (Gen. 22:17), God is using simile, because similes make the point more understandable. In that sense, figurative language is pretty much used throughout the entire Bible. For example, when forgiveness is described as a “washing” (Acts 22:16), or a “cleansing” (Ephesians 5:26), that is imagery that helps the reader understand the point more clearly. Or, when the person who meditates continually upon God’s word is said to be “like a tree planted by streams of water that brings forth its fruit in its season” (Psalm 1:3), a word picture is painted (by means of simile).
However, if you're saying that when it says that God made man out of the dust of the ground; or that God created the universe in 6 days; or when it says that Adam, Methuselah, and others lived for hundreds of years; is figurative and not literal, I would have to disagree with you there...no matter what some so-called conservative scholars may have said. (After all, remember what Jesus called the conservative scholars of His day!)
[Japanese referee announces, "Yame!"]
[bowing respectfully, turning to Sean]
Sean:
Your points in your post were very well-stated, and very respectful.
[bowing respectfully, turning back to Russ]
Russ:
Your reply to Sean was excellent, IMO. Your theological knowledge is very evident.
[standing in ready stance, facing both]
The only thing I would add would be to Sean's statement, So, for the average person (and I suspect all sane people) religious knowledge is based on neither empirical evidence nor first hand experience. I would say that every true born-again Christian has experienced God by first-hand experience. I don't necessarily mean hearing an audible voice (though some do claim this); and I don't mean seeing God physically---because God is spirit, and not physical. What I mean is, that every born-again Christian has met God and knows God in a personal way, in the sense that I have met and personally know my dad and mom. In fact, meeting God in this manner is part of what it means to become a true Christian. This is a simplistic way of stating it, as opposed to Russ' more theological, intellectual language.
[bows respectfully and steps back]
Back to my comment tirade on Genesis...
ReplyDeleteIf the recorded ages of some of the people in Genesis reflects a longer span than the years they actually lived (i.e., Adam lived 930 years; Seth lived 912 years; Enosh lived 905 years; Kenan lived 910 years; Mahalalel lived 895 years; Jared lived 962 years; Enoch lived 365 years; Methuselah lived 969 years; Lamech lived 777 years; Noah lived 950 years), then why is it that after the Flood, when God announces that man's lifespan will be shorter from now on, the lifespan of people begin to be (eventually and somewhat progressively) more 'normal' as they are today?
Gen. 11:10,11 says, "Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters."
OK, lets say that 500 years was an exaggeration of, say, 5 times the actual years that Shem lived, meaning that he actually lived to be 100, and he actually had Arphaxad when he was 20 years old.
However, in verse 12, the next verse, it says, "When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah." Verse 13 continues, "And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters."
So, if you apply that 1/5 argument, Arphaxad must have become the father of Shelah when Arphaxad was 7 years old!
The same thing applies to the verses after that. Shelah became a dad at 30 years of age and lived to be 403. Eber became a dad at age 34 and lived to be 430. Peleg became a dad at age 30 and lived to be 209. Reu became a dad at 32 and lived to be 207. Serug became a dad at age 30 and lived to be 200. Nahor became a dad at 29 and lived to be 119.
If those ages of their lifespan were actually much shorter, then the ages they became a dad must have been much younger. So again, they must have fathered children when they were not even 10 years old yet!
Not only that, but notice that, in general, the lifespans become progressively shorter and shorter.
I have heard about a person getting killed from a softball hit to the head. they are pretty big and not exactly soft balls.
ReplyDeleteI so look forward to the ben stein movie. rick b
Jeff, thanks very much. You are a very much appreciated blogging friend, and a very good support for this blog.
ReplyDeleteEach issue needs to be looked at individually. The use of the word yom in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4 needs to be considered. I do not pretend to be an Old Testament/Hebrew scholar, but in light of the figurative use of language in Genesis, the fact that Genesis is religious and not scientific history, and the arguments from scientists such as Hugh Ross, that entropy means that creation took place billions of years ago; Jeff I think we need to be open-minded on this issue. There is not, contrary to what some fundamentalists state, a clear cut case for six day creation in Genesis. I told you about the Old Testament/Hebrew scholar at church who informed me of the use of the word yom; well Strong's defines the same word yowm in both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4, in agreement with the scholar from church. I reason these are both legitimate scholars, and we should not imply they are like the teachers of the law. Strong writes the term could be a literal day, or a figurative space of time defined by an associated term. Strong (1986: 63). The context of the word largely determines meaning. In Genesis 1 it seems from a plain literal read, creation took place in six days, in Genesis 2, one day. Where does this leave us? Without a certain definitive plain literal interpretation. My pastor who has a Doctorate, reads my blogs and told me today that he has come to similar conclusions through reading, and I reason that many conservative scholars who will not he condemned by Christ on the issue, have come to similar conclusions.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
We know God personally through his word and Spirit. But, we cannot empirically prove God through spiritual experience. We therefore primarily use Scripture to verify personal experience with God.
Thanks for the Genesis age info.
Russ:)
Rick, thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteI was hit in the back by a baseball once, and that was bad enough.
No disrespect intended to Jeff’s comments but I feel compelled to make a point.
ReplyDeleteJeff states
"I would say that every true born-again Christian has experienced God by first-hand experience. I don't necessarily mean hearing an audible voice (though some do claim this); and I don't mean seeing God physically---because God is spirit, and not physical. What I mean is that every born-again Christian has met God and knows God in a personal way, in the sense that I have met and personally know my dad and mom.
You are making a comparison of knowing god in a personal way in the sense that I have met and personally know my dad and mom.
I know this is just a comparison but to compare a spiritual being to a physical relationship like one with your father or mother as evidence of knowing god on a personal level is not evidence of god, cause it cannot be proven as a fact. Your mom and dad can be proven cause its a physical reality.
I say this cause their have been all kind of spiritual leaders in every religion around the world through history that have claimed the same. Cult leaders/murderers/wars that were caused because one person believed god told them to do this or that. Or because of a personal conviction one had in relation to what he or she was being told or led by gods hand.
How one would discern the difference between what is really god and what is what people think is god. Think of the Pentecostal movement or Quakers, or faith healers. They all claimed the same thing you are doing. How does one really know what is god and what is being just an a emotional high? When u want to believe in something u can convince your self all kind of things.
I think when one wants to believe in god they can claim all kinds of things that they had a personal experience, to bad none of them could ever be proven.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI guess what I was trying to say is that the existence of God can be proven when you experience Him yourself. In other words, a born again Christian knows for a fact that God exists. However, you cannot prove to someone else that God exists by your own experience. You can offer that as evidence, but one person's personal experience is not absolute proof to another person of something.
Someone can tell you, "I saw Jesus today! He stood at the foot of my bed, and we talked for hours." That certainly is no proof that the person actually saw Jesus, and most people would think that person was either imagining things or lying.
As far as 'empirical' in the sense of being derived from observation or experiment, there have been Atheists who have become Christians after observing, comparing, testing, and critically examining the Bible. In fact, persons such as Josh McDowell, Stan Telchin and Lee Strobel actually set out to disprove the Bible (i.e., in Stan Telchin's case, he did it for the purpose of convincing his daughter that Christianity was NOT the true way) through critical examination of it, and as a result, became Christians. So, from that aspect, you can prove the truth and authenticity of the Bible and of Christianity to yourself, though you cannot prove it, in the absolute sense, to someone else that way.
In summary, I know that a person can find out for certain, without a doubt, that God exists, through their own experience; which, with some people, has begun with a critical examination of the claims of the Bible; but no person can prove (or disprove) absolutely to another person whether God exists.
I suppose another way of putting it is that God can indeed be known, but He cannot be scientifically or philosophically proved.
Your mom and dad can be proven cause its a physical reality.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point, Sean.
How one would discern the difference between what is really god and what is what people think is god.
Evidence.
Judaism and Christianity have approximately 3400 years of compiled history. Many of the disciples of Christ gave up their lives for the faith and philosophy, because they had viewed the resurrected Christ and understood dying as worthwhile. Why would Paul convert to Christianity and suffer great persecution without having experienced the risen Christ, as documented. Why would he fabricate a story of viewing Christ, that really ruined his life in many ways, and caused him to be on the wrong side of Roman law? He lost status as a Jewish teacher, and did not gain earthly riches. Many of the disciples died in the faith by the state, because they had known Christ and viewed him as resurrected, or knew of others that had known Christ and saw him raised. They gave their lives not for money, sex, or power, but for a religious movement founded by someone claiming to be God, who had done miracles and was raised from the dead. The Christian Church Fathers were often associates of the disciples and this is why Christian faith and philosophy continued.
Now, others have died for false religion. But this does not mean that all religious claims must be false.
Think of the Pentecostal movement or Quakers, or faith healers. They all claimed the same thing you are doing. How does one really know what is god and what is being just an a emotional high? When u want to believe in something u can convince your self all kind of things.
It is true one can be deceived within religion both psychologically and spiritually, but Christianity cannot be dismissed that easily for those reasons. Judaism and Christianity would have to be historically reviewed leading to a resounding dismissal based on evidence, and this has not occurred despite the writings of many critics. Supernatural occurrences are stated to happen within religion and the occult. These occurrences have not all conclusively been shown to be fraudulent, or natural. Therefore, Biblical claims need to be handled with an open mind with the disciplines of history, philosophy, theology and literary research.
I think when one wants to believe in god they can claim all kinds of things that they had a personal experience, to bad none of them could ever be proven.
Events can be made up, but for the persons that witnessed the resurrection of Christ, they viewed this with their own eyes. This does not scientifically prove the existence of God who is spirit, but since Christ was raised and claimed to be God, it is certain, using the definition I defined earlier, that Christ was and is God.
I suppose another way of putting it is that God can indeed be known, but He cannot be scientifically or philosophically proved.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff, for answering Sean, and contributing to the dialogue.
"Forget Hare Krishna...Hairy Christians?" = hehehehehe
ReplyDelete'Ain't I a stinka'.;)
ReplyDeleteActually I smell good...
Thanks