GOD and the black hole

[monkspider]

While I'm generally of the opinion that there seems to be certain "evidence" that seems to point toward God's existence. This evidence is unnescessary. Some say that to believe in God is purely a matter of faith, that the facts of the universe are agnostic toward God's existence. You can analyzed a thousand arguements for and against God's existence, and still reach an unclear answer. I say that faith alone is not needed in realizing God, in fact, given proper levels of spirtual advancement, God can become as tangible as the computer monitor you currently stare at. But from Carl Sagan to Madeline Murray O'Hare, all will come to know God. It may not be today, and it may not be tommorrow, but it will occur eventually!

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ramo
Reactionary atheist? That's an interesting combination of words...

Reactionary in regards to the self-righteous priests and televangelists and so forth.
Of course, that's not to say that it's inevitable that what's referred to as organized religion will always be a bad thing. It's been a very positive thing before, and it will be so again. But it just so happens that at the present time, in the western world at least, it does more harm than good.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
My intention to defend the historical accuracy of the Gospels is not to say that the Gospels are the true account. All I said is that the Gospels are just as accurate if not more than any other historical records we have.

On what basis do you make this assertion, given that much of the historical events given in the Gospels are either inaccurate or nonexistent?

Originally posted by obiwan18
To reject the Gospels without examining them, you must reject all history that we have. Are you willing to do this? Examine the Gospels, and then we can hash out whether this is a valid account.

You have not answered the questions regarding the internal inconsistencies. Was Jesus born in a manger? Only one of the three Sypnotic Gospels described this. Was Jesus even born in Bethlehem at all? Why is Paul's account of Jesus so different from the Sypnotic Gospels? The list goes on and on.

Originally posted by obiwan18
General revelation will not get you to Christianity. Nowhere do I say this. Only the Gospels will do so. All of these other gods are an attempt to fill this spiritual void.

Yet there is no evidence of this "general revelation."

"There are some differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. Why? Why, for example, that the Gospel of Thomas isn't included?"

Originally posted by obiwan18
This issue is with inspiration. Catholics believe that the OT Apocryphal books are inspired, while Protestants believe that they are not.

How could that possibly be, if this inspiration all comes from the same source? If this inspiration requires human interpretation, how then can one be sure of it?

Originally posted by obiwan18
The Gospel of Thomas is not considered to be inspired by either.

Again, why was the bible compiled by the Church in such a late date?

Originally posted by obiwan18
ALL Christian denominations believe that the Gospels are inspired, and those are the only books under question.

So why are there so many inconsistencies? Why is John so different from the Sypnotic Gospels?

Originally posted by obiwan18
Where, what passages, etc. I am perfectly willing to hash out these inconsistencies. Show me which ones are problematic fo you.

Okay, let's start with the simple ones. How do you reconcile the two different account of Jesus' genealogy? No, saying one goes through Joseph's mother isn't acceptable.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
I say that faith alone is not needed in realizing God, in fact, given proper levels of spirtual advancement, God can become as tangible as the computer monitor you currently stare at.

You are weird.

The serious problem is this posits that the Judeo-Christian god actually exists, which is the centre of the whole issue.

[The Vagabond]

Everything that Boris says in this thread

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I, however, do look down upon anyone who believes in a diety. It shows a lack of intelligence.

You show some intrinsic lack of tolerance here, Che. No, you can't be entrusted with being the dictator in a dictatorship of the proletariate.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Nothing science has found in any way indicates their is or isn't a God. Personal statements to the effect of "I know God exists because I feel his presence in my life" are meaningless, as people often feel things that aren't real.

on my personal website i said something about this:

it basically comes down to this (as far as i see it):

you cant prove god exists. you cant prove god doesn't exist. it comes down to a simple pessimist / optimist debate.

is the glass half empty or half full. usually, fuller is better. people take their sides.

it would be great if some "supreme being" was watching over us and taking care of us and whatnot. again, the sides are drawn.

and i find myself on the pessimist side.

[Inverse Icarus]

oh, and we all know black holes are where god divided by zero

[The Vagabond]

No, God prefers playing dice to dividing by zero. The size of the black hole should be finite due to the quantum effects.

[Ramo]

Quantum mechanics currently don't model singularities.

[Ramo]

Reactionary in regards to the self-righteous priests and televangelists and so forth.

I don't follow you...

Of course, that's not to say that it's inevitable that what's referred to as organized religion will always be a bad thing. It's been a very positive thing before, and it will be so again. But it just so happens that at the present time, in the western world at least, it does more harm than good.

Of course religion can play a positive, liberating role (as it has in Latin America during recent times), but that generally occurs only with such ideas replacing more reactionary religious ideas, not the lack of religious ideas.

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by obiwan-18
The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels.

This doesn't prove anything.

Ever heard of Scientology? It is a religion claiming that L. Ron Hubbard is a god. There are scientologists who state that this is true, and some of these people have actually met Hubbard. But since Hubbard is dead, we can never meet him and see this for ourselves. Does this mean we must accept the scientologists' claim - because they have met him and we haven't?

That's right, it doesn't. Neither do we have to accept the records in the Bible, simply because those who wrote them down have met Jesus, and we haven't.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by UberKruX
oh, and we all know black holes are where god divided by zero

No, its where he made memory leaks in universe.exe
IT students, bah!

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I asked for it ; )

Boris,
As for what I have already said, let me track down the books so I can cite them.

Urban Ranger's List of inconsistencies:

"Was Jesus born in a manger?"
"Why is John so much different from the rest?"
"Was Jesus even born in Bethlehem at all?"
"How do you reconcile the two different account of Jesus' genealogy?"

List of other problems:

"There are some differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. Why? Why, for example, that the Gospel of Thomas isn't included?"

"How could that possibly be, if this inspiration all comes from the same source?"

GENEOLOGY:

One branch traces Mary's geneology, and the other through Joseph. Both sides are from the tribe of Judah, and both eventually lead to King David. No inconsistency here.

JOHN vs. SYNOPTICS

John is dated between AD 85-90, while the synoptics are usually dated from the late 50's to early 60's.
Therefore, John would have been familiar with the Gospels. His purpose focuses on theological and doctrinal issues rather than a biographical documentary.
There is no requirement that he parrot the Gospels in order to be divinely inspired, as there are many different genres in the bible.

BETHLEHEM

No inconsistency between the Gospel accounts. Matthew refers to the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

MANGER BIRTH

No inconsistency. No Gospel contradicts the account of Jesus being born in the stables.

AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURES, INFALLIABILITY

Revelation from God is not merely dictated to the authors. The authors' vocabulary and writing styles all express the revelation, though the teachings of the revelation will remain unchanged.
This allows for different authors to discuss different topics, to focus on different aspects of the same ministry of Jesus, without contradiction. Stylistic differences do not make for a contradiction.
Revelation is progressive, where God will add more to what he has previously said. This accounts for a progressive doctrine and instructions, from Mosaic Law to the teachings of Jesus.

PROBLEMS WITH INCLUSION OF APOCRYPHA& GOSPEL OF THOMAS

The Gospel of Thomas relies on the other Gospels, and dated to 140 AD.
Unless one accepts the other Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas has no authority.
The Church rejected the Gospel of Thomas for Gnostic teachings, identifying salvation with possession of secret knowledge, contradicting Scripture.

The Apocryphal books, which Catholics accept are somewhat more problematic.
However, they do not claim to be authoritative, they were not authoritative to the Jews
(who received the OT revelation). They also contain numerous contradictions with Scriputure, such as prayer for the dead.

Now I get to ask a question, directed at Zero-Tau as well. What makes a Christian a Christian?

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Now I get to ask a question, directed at Zero-Tau as well. What makes a Christian a Christian?

"Accept of the Bible" is what you want to hear, right? If you accept the Bible as being historically accurate, then there is proof of God, of course. Still, that proof is totally lost on everyone who doesn't accept the Bible straightaway.

So tell me: Why should I accept the Bible as being accurate?