Stephen T-B

“ But tell us this: If most of what the Christians claim (see Nicene Creed) turns out to be true, will you serve God?”

Most of...?
So which bits can we ignore, please?

This bit: “We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen”?

Or this: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father”?
(“Begotten not made” eh. The Virgin Birth and all that. How could that ever be proved?)


“Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation”...(all things made for us and our salvation? All those billions and billions of galaxies; the HIV virus? Around 450 different species of ant? Mussels living on gases emitted by subterranean vents at the bottom of the ocean?)
“...he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man”? - (Oh right, that Virgin birth thing again.)

Or this “For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
he suffered death and was buried
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures...” (extremely difficult to prove...)
“ he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.” (I don’t see how we can ever know that for a certainty...)
“ He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end”? (If that happens in my lifetime, Radorth, then OK, I got it all wrong and you got it all right. But I have my doubts it will.)


Or this: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets”?
(The Trinity. Now there’s a thing. Has anyone actually succeeded in explaining it in terms which make any sense?)
Can we ignore any of these, perhaps - “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”? (Does that include the Davidians?)
“We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?
And what about: “We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen”?
(Resurrection of the dead? In practical terms that’s clearly an impossibility. Is that one of the bits we can ignore?)

As we see, the Nicene Creed is a statement of faith. Faith isn't a truth: Faith in certain things may prove to be ijustified or not justified; if justified, faith ceases to be necessary. which is why Christian faith can never be justified, for without faith, what would a Christian have left, except a good feeling?

scombrid

Sorry I'm late coming into this. I'm sure I'll find more to comment on as I browse the thread.

1. You don't know that those people are saved. All you see their after the "death moment" is a dead body. That a soul exists and where that soul is if existing is not known.

2. I'm guessing you convinced those gang members that you and your worldview had more to offer than killing each other. Good for you.

3. My brother barely graduated from high school. I can't even count the number of detentions that he got. He nearly failed out of community college. Then one of his friends got hung up in drugs. My brother saw his life going into the toilet along with his friends'. He ended up graduating from a local University with a 3.2 in Horticulture and has now taken over as the manager of a tree farm. His switch from failing grades to A-B student and business manager occurred around the same time that he rejected religion.

scombrid

We've been over the natural disaster bit before. Once people have knowledge of a danger it is their responsibility to take action within their knowledge and power to avoid said danger or accept the risk. Of course that can be muddled if they're unable to move. Then there is the further problem that natural disaster can't be avoided.

Oh well, we know and accept the dangers of earth. The majority of us get by without major crisis. The fun thing to consider is that Pat Robertson and his ilk still blame natural disasters on contemporaneous sin even when they can't pinpoint the sinner and have to right off a lot of colateral damage. If god is going after the lesbians and liberals when he sends a hurricane to slam the coast, what about all those good god fearing bubbas that get blasted by the storm? The theology of the Christian Coalition makes blaming god easy since they credit disasters as being god's wrath. If they're right, then god has a very sloppy means of disciplining his children. If my brother cussed, and I ate soap for it, I'd be rightfully mad at mom.

Of course, we have no choice because there is nowhere else to go. If God said to me that this was the best he could do I'd (well first I'd have to believe in him then since he would have to reveal himself to speak to me) have no choice but to stay. Where esle would we go? How could we refuse to live here other than kill ourselves? Most people prefer life since in life we have something and in death there is nothing.

Family Man

Um...not all of us have had such a pleasant experience with you, luvluv. Right now, class is not a term I associate with you.

NOGO

My mistake. I should have put a question mark at the end of that sentence. I was asking a question as a way of reintroducing my point since you did not answer it last time.

The concept of sin is for those who need to be saved. In essence they need a reason for which God is not being nice to them in this world and a condition for changing that into next, ie the so called Kingdom of God.

I reject the concept of sin. I have done nothing for which I should be condemned. Believers like Paul had to look high and low in order to find something for which we should fee guilty. He found the so called original sin. He discussed this before, Radorth, or at least I started a thread in which you refused to participate. So if you want to feel guilty for something Adam and Eve did that is up to you. I believe that Paul was very creative. Perhaps he had something to feel guilty about, like murdering people.

I guess if the Kingdom of God is for the rependant it is not for me. But perhaps you are wrong and Christianity is all false. Here again you imply that the only thing wrong with this world is us. Wrong! Wrong! and Wrong! again.

Early Christians set out to create a community of the meek, the humble and repentant and what happened? Right from the start there were problems. Some people did not sell all that they owned and give it to the community of God. For this they were murdered. There is no need to say more today most Christians believe in private property and therefore the attempt to create Heaven on earth through Christianity failed.

Most problems in the world have nothing to do with humans. They are built in.

Dying for our sins is another absurd concept. Hebrews 9 says that without blood there is no forgiveness of sin. This is the creatiion of a barbarous society where animals were sacrificed in order to obtain forgiveness from the Gods. Once you understand that Christianity will be as meaningless to you as it is to me.

Your question is hypothetical.
If Christianity is true ... if Christianity is true I will eat my hat.
In such extreme cases I suppose I will be able to do anything. God will have to do a lot of explaining because to me it simply does not make sense. To me there is as much chance that Christianity is true than Zeus is the real God.

You now answer this one. What if Christianity were false and you had the absolute proof of that. Would you consider your life as meaningless as many Christians claim or would you live it anyway?

Radorth

It would take a lot more than the ten gratuitous and slanderous assertions you made before the question. But hey if you ever get any, let me know. BTW, it is customary in civil societies to provide proof of slanderous accusations. Not that you have any or ever will.

It's a great marvel how non-Christians alone claim to be effectively sinless, by word or actions, or think they can make amends. But that's the difference between a Christian and everybody else. The informed Christian knows there is forgiveness from God himself, that righteousness is imputed, so there is no need to make specious denials, act holy, or rationalize continually. S/he can use the time saved and freedom gained to "grow in grace" and change.

The fact is we all "hunger and thirst after righteousness." Some admit it and are filled, while others are left to declare their own righteousness, as we see above.

Rad

Radorth

Re: Stephan

Don't be inane. You are just begging the question. OK let me go slower. If everything written in the Creed which we have faith in, turns out to be true, would you serve God?

Get it now?

:banghead: Rad

Rhea

Why do you ask this here? This is totally off topic.
It's not begging the question at all. (which question, anyway?)

This is about FAITH. Why have FAITH.
It's not about "what will you do if you're proven wrong". It's about FAITH, and the creed is all about FAITH, not TRUTH.

What he'd do if faced with a TRUTH is not relevant to this topic (even though he answered for you)

Please stay on topic.

Radorth

Well, yes. Where is God's great fault again? And if he said that was the best he could do with the weather, you would complain or not?

Really, do you have a link to back up this suspiciously general assertions?

OK

But that is not the only reason they would choose to live here, is it? It is a physically beautiful place. Not only would most people agree to live here, but they would probably not hesitate. Still, this is as close as anyone has come to answering in lieu of tap dancing. But then more questions come to mind. Why do you stop vilifying God for natural disasters just because he told you it was the best he could do? What's the difference? And how then can you logically use natural disasters as some sort of argument that a good God cannot exist?

What if he told you that, in 600 years an asteroid would hit the earth and wipe out all life? Would you call him a bad God? What I'm getting at here is that God does not have to live up to skeptics' vague and subjective definitions of "omnimax" to be good, or even to be thanked. I have no doubt he will demonstrate powers some skeptics pray he doesn't have, in time. But that is beside the point here.

Rad

Radorth

I'm sorry. I thought we've been discussing this question for some time now.

OK I get it. The skeptics can answer, but I can't.

I guess I wasn't clear, although Nogo figured it out, and Scombrid chose to answer.

IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, AND THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT IN A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

The most irrelevant posts in the last fifteen are yours and Stephan's I'm afraid.

Rad