PDA

View Full Version : [split] Christianity: True or False? Proveable? Disproveable?



Jäger
Monday, March 5th, 2007, 10:29 AM
But in order to make a choice that is true to oneself, everyone should be given the knowledge about different ways to look at the world.
I follow the ideas of DvB on this (like in many things :)), religion should not be something were you join automatically, but consciously, and it actually should be taught in school, at a cretain age, and everyone who wants to enter a religion has to pay a fee, and then pay taxes, plus he should take tests, so that we can be sure that he is really aware of what he joined there, after a few years there will be only a few die hard christians/muslisms (which would be not of much concern then though) left, they will get extinct sooner or later.

Christianity is too waggly with not much foundation in true human behaviour as that it could stand firm with this.

Rhydderch
Monday, March 5th, 2007, 11:23 AM
I think it's wrong to indoctrinate children to belive that christianity is the only way to goodness, and that everything else is evil and wrong.What if it's true?

Jäger
Monday, March 5th, 2007, 11:55 AM
What if it's true?
It can't be, since "goodness" is no firm universal definition.

Theudanaz
Monday, March 5th, 2007, 11:23 PM
So I guess I will just thank God that I can't read this.:D

Rhydderch
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 01:09 AM
It can't be, since "goodness" is no firm universal definition.That means the terms "good" and "evil" are so relative that they are meaningless, and therefore shouldn't be used. Is that what you really think?

I think we all know what goodness is, and evil is by definition, the opposite of good.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and "no man comes to (God) the Father but by me". So the Bible plainly teaches that any way other than Christ is the way of spiritual death, alienation from God, who is the source of spiritual life.

Can you prove that the Bible is wrong on this?

Jäger
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 07:13 AM
I think we all know what goodness is, and evil is by definition, the opposite of good.
Certainly not, there are things beyond good and evil ;)


Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" and "no man comes to (God) the Father but by me". So the Bible plainly teaches that any way other than Christ is the way of spiritual death, alienation from God, who is the source of spiritual life.

Can you prove that the Bible is wrong on this?
If you define "goodness" simply thorugh what the Bible says, then, of course, Christ is the only way to it.
I also heard there are living 20 Marsians here on Earth, can you prove me wrong on this?

Rhydderch
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 08:20 AM
Certainly not, there are things beyond good and evil ;)What exactly do you mean by this?


If you define "goodness" simply thorugh what the Bible says, then, of course, Christ is the only way to it.I take it then that you disagree with whoever said "I think it's wrong to indoctrinate children to believe that christianity is the only way to goodness, and that everything else is evil and wrong."


I also heard there are living 20 Marsians here on Earth, can you prove me wrong on this?I don't suppose I could prove to you beyond doubt that you're wrong, but I'm personally confident that that's not the case. I have grounds for my confidence.

What are the grounds for your confidence that the Bible is wrong?

Jäger
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 09:13 AM
What exactly do you mean by this?
That what is good for one man, can be bad for another.


I take it then that you disagree with whoever said "I think it's wrong to indoctrinate children to believe that christianity is the only way to goodness, and that everything else is evil and wrong."
Maybe I fell for some language problems? If "goodness" is just what the Bible says, then yes, I would have to disagree, then I wouldn't want to bring children to "goodness" though.


What are the grounds for your confidence that the Bible is wrong?
It's that I can't find any grounds for confidence that the Bible is right.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 12:32 PM
That what is good for one man, can be bad for another.OK. But the Bible says otherwise, with respect to being spiritually alive or dead. Man was designed and intended to be in harmony with his Creator, and even though after the Fall he willingly rejects God, his separation from God and his spiritual deadness is still a pain and burden to him. But one doesn't realise the problem unless he's spiritually brought to life and harmony (to a greater or lesser degree) with God.


Maybe I fell for some language problems? If "goodness" is just what the Bible says, then yes, I would have to disagree, then I wouldn't want to bring children to "goodness" though.If you were spiritually alive you'd know that this goodness really is objectively good, and that separation from God is objectively bad.


It's that I can't find any grounds for confidence that the Bible is right.That makes it an argument from ignorance :) It means you have no logical grounds for your confidence that the Bible is wrong.

Wicked
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 02:54 PM
I take it then that you disagree with whoever said "I think it's wrong to indoctrinate children to believe that christianity is the only way to goodness, and that everything else is evil and wrong.
Well, that was my statement and I stand by it. I think all people are capable of goodness, whatever that is, regardless of religion. I don't think christianity have the truth, I don't even think there is a universal truth. I don't think christianity have the patent on goodness either. I think moral and truth are subjective things, and that everyone should have the freedom to discover their own belives.

Jäger
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 06:08 PM
That makes it an argument from ignorance :) It means you have no logical grounds for your confidence that the Bible is wrong.
Honestly, I am just not in the mood to discuss this, again. But fine, the Bible is wrong with it's 5th commandment "You shall not murder", I would raise my son to decide for himself when he has to murder, thus makeing him a person subjected to his own decisions, with justifying his acts before himself rather than to some diety he even can't overcome, and thus making him a essentially a slave.

But if you want to make me aware, just give me your reasons for your confidence, then we can discuss.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 12:08 PM
Well, that was my statement and I stand by it.I didn't expect you not to :)


I think moral and truth are subjective thingsIsn't it a bit of a contradiction in terms to say that truth is subjective?

Alternatively, you could say that truth doesn't exist, which itself would have to be a true statement. So truth (by an ordinary definition) clearly exists, and is not subjective, unless one is just changing the definition, and using it to mean something else.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 12:46 PM
Honestly, I am just not in the mood to discuss this, again. But fine, the Bible is wrong with it's 5th commandment "You shall not murder", I would raise my son to decide for himself when he has to murder, thus makeing him a person subjected to his own decisions, with justifying his acts before himself rather than to some diety he even can't overcome, and thus making him a essentially a slave.Again, that assumes that what the scripture says about man and his relationship to God is wrong.

The commandments aren't just arbitrarily put in place by God. To disobey the commandments involves sinning against God, but God's commandments are consistent with the perfection in which he created us. To break them is a violation of nature, and is bad for us, physically and spiritually.


But if you want to make me aware, just give me your reasons for your confidence, then we can discuss.It's ultimately based on faith, which is spiritual sight or sense (not blind, wishful thinking, as people often use it to mean). But of course, to have this sight/sense requires being spiritually alive; if one is spiritually dead then he won't know what I'm talking about. I don't think it can even be comprehended by someone who is dead, spiritually.

If someone is dreaming while asleep, he can think it's really happening, but when he awakes he realises it wasn't real. In the same way, people can think their religion is the truth, but if they were spiritually awakened (i.e. came to life) they would be seeing the "real" truth, and they'd realise it is possible to be sure of it. They can then see clearly the truth of scripture, and experience its truth; it testifies to them of its own reality and harmony.

I guess you'll think this sounds like nonsense, but then, on what grounds? :D

Jäger
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Again, that assumes that what the scripture says about man and his relationship to God is wrong.
Yes, that was the point to begin with, if there is no christian God, there can't be a universal goodness, this discussion is of course meaningless without faith, if there is no God the Bible is wrong, why would we teach our children that this not really sure thing is the absolut truth then?
That was what I hoped for when I asked for your reasoning.


I don't think it can even be comprehended by someone who is dead, spiritually.
Define spiritually dead please.

Rhydderch
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 12:35 AM
Yes, that was the point to begin with, if there is no christian God, there can't be a universal goodness, this discussion is of course meaningless without faith, if there is no God the Bible is wrong, why would we teach our children that this not really sure thing is the absolut truth then?Well, for those who aren't sure they obviously have no grounds to teach their kids that it's the absolute truth.

But my point is that if you can't prove that it isn't the absolute truth, or prove that it's impossible to be sure of it being the truth, then you have no grounds to say that people shouldn't teach their kids that it's the absolute truth, and that everything else is evil and wrong.


Define spiritually dead please.It's a bit hard to define it any further than "spiritual death". But it involves being totally cut of, alienated from (due to rejection of) God, the source of spiritual life and well-being. It's a deadness with respect to God though; the soul still exists, is conscious, and seeks to fill the total spiritual emptiness and lack of satisfaction, with material goodness; but of course, it turns out to be a mirage for the soul, although physical well-being is a distraction, and can to an extent supress that emptiness, but without filling it.

Being in harmony with God is as necessary for spiritual life as food, drink and oxygen is necessary for physical life.

Jäger
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 07:52 AM
But my point is that if you can't prove that it isn't the absolute truth, ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof


... or prove that it's impossible to be sure of it being the truth, ...
If the first one is unprovable, the logical conclusion is that it is not "sure", q.e.d. :D


Being in harmony with God is as necessary for spiritual life as food, drink and oxygen is necessary for physical life.
This sounds like a circle definition to me, anyway, why would anyobdy want to be spiritually alive?

Rhydderch
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 09:31 AM
If the first one is unprovable, the logical conclusion is that it is not "sure", q.e.d. :DI'm not arguing that it's unprovable. I'm only saying that since it's spiritual proof, one will not see it if he's spiritually dead, in which case it can't be proven to him, but that of course doesn't mean it is itself unprovable. In the same way, the existence of colour is provable, but not to someone who can't see it :D

So, as far as you're concerned it's not "sure", but you haven't demonstrated that it's unprovable.


This sounds like a circle definition to meIt's only part of it, but why is that circular?


anyway, why would anyobdy want to be spiritually alive?Well, spiritual death is due to a rejection of God, the source of life. Man in his fallen state doesn't wish to be spiritually alive, unless God makes him see his miserable state, the fact that rejecting God is the cause of his pain, burden and emptiness, and to see the reality that nothing other than spiritual life is going to satisfy him properly, and remove the pain and burden.

Man wants to satisfy that spiritual emptiness and relieve the burden, but rejects the only source of this satisfaction and peace (God), deluding himself into thinking he'll be able to do it with material things.

Leofric
Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 05:40 PM
This thread is a split from the thread Americans are Religious Illiterates (http://forums.skadi.net/americans_religious_illiterates-t71119.html?p=763160#post763160).

Please change all thread subscriptions as necessary.