David Mathews

Hello HelenSL,

David: I believe that it happened, though not necessarily as it is written. I don't believe that the written account was written to provide an objective history or news report of what happened.

All I know is that Jesus did come to this Earth, He lived and died, and He rose from the dead. The gospel message in its most simple form is subtle and profound.

David: I always consider people individuals, I don't lump people together. That applies to theists just as well as it applies to atheists.

I appreciate diversity and notice differences.

David: Thanks for your kind comments. It took many years of diligent effort to purge anger and impatience from my soul, though I can't say that I have perfected myself in any way.

In Christ,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Intensity,

David: Mountains and rivers are real to us, just as flesh and blood are real to us. That is why God interacts with humans as a human, not only as Jesus but also in manifestations of God recorded in the Old Testament.

On the time scale of thousands of years, humans are not real because their existence and nonexistence is enclosed within a smaller time frame than a thousand years. On a time scale of hundreds of millions of years, mountains and rivers are not real because their existence and nonexistence are contained within smaller time frames.

Ultimately, the only things which are real are only those things whose existence is not provisional nor temporal. According to that definition, even the Universe itself is not real. Supposing that the Universe were to exist 100 billion years, it would still not be real because its existence is still provisional and temporal. That means that according to that definition, only God is real -- not human souls, angels, devils and all spiritual beings.

God's existence is intrinsic, human existence (body - mind - soul) is a gift which God gives and takes according to His will. Therefore all definitions of existence which apply to provisional and temporal things cannot possible apply to God.

David: There was a historical Jesus, who lived, died, was buried and resurrected to live forevermore. The symbolism of Jesus' life was physical, material and identical in all respects to humankind.

David: You do understand the implication of my statements regarding the atoms which compose the human body.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Theli,

David: There are billions of ways for atoms to assume non-living and inanimate forms, only a small number of ways for atoms to associate themselves into molecules composing living things. The association of atoms which compose a human is in a perpetual state of flux as atoms enter and leave according to the rules governing biological processes.

When thinking of your own atoms, consider that the hydrogen in your body is over ten billions years old and all of the other elements are at least five billion years old. Over the history of the atom, at least 99.9999999999% of the time the atom is not associated in any way with any form of life. I suppose that means that atoms don't prefer living states over non-living and inanimate states.

Secondarily, the atoms which compose your body are trasnferred back and forth between life and life, and also between non-life and life. When you eat a steak or a vegetable, the atoms which formerly associated themselves into an animal or plant form are conscripted into the human form. They are conscripted only temporarily, for soon enough a bacteria, a maggot or a worm will consume them, or perhaps a plant's root will absorb them.

I suppose that means that in some sense atoms experience reincarnation, though the atoms don't know nor care where they are and what they are doing. From the standpoint of the atom, they merely exist. They exist no matter what, and they won't cease to exist. All the homes that they find themselves contained within are temporarily: whether that home is a mountain, an ocean, the soil, a plant, an animal or a human.

From a philosophical standpoint I may prefer to think of the hundred and fifty or so pounds of flesh which compose me as belonging to myself, it is evident that the atoms don't exist for me and are not owned by me. Soon enough, those atoms will all escape from my grasp and my own existence will find its end in the ground.

David: I had chemistry class myself, and I don't remember the teacher saying anything about atoms volunteering for anything. Organic molecules are instrinsically unstable, that is one reason why living things die.

David: Yes, you are correct.

David: You do understand the implications of my comments. If you follow them to their logical conclusion, you will learn why I can affirm God's existence while still insisting that God is not real.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello HelenSL,

David: To be perfectly honest, I believe that "real" is such an ambiguous word that it cannot convey any useful information.

I am real because I am alive, a day will come in which I am not alive and therefore in that sense am not real. I may live on in the memories of people, but that sort of historical reality is very different from the reality of existence.

On the time scale of billions of years, can an entity whose existence is contained within a hundred years be real? In a Universe in which stars are born, live and die within a time span of ten billion years, can anyone say that human civilization, contained as it is within tens of thousands of years, is real?

If the sun became a red giant, and swelled to a hundred million miles, the Earth's crust might melt and all relics of humankind's existence might cease to exist. In what sense were humans real if all memories of human kind are forgotten and all physical relics of humankind cease to exist?

The nature of reality is a profound philosophical question, and I believe that the atheists here are using the word "real" in an ambiguous manner. They say that humans are "real" because we are physical beings, forgetting that human existence is among the most transient of phenomena. They say that God is not "real" because God is not physical nor is God contained within the Universe, forgetting that the footprints of God (as it were) are bigger than the Universe.

Even from the standpoint of the discussion, the reality of the other participants is only provisional. Perhaps a person such as Douglas J. Bender actually exist, or perhaps he is merely a caricature invented by someone else. I don't know that these other people actually exist, though I am confident that all these other posters are actual people who are accurately representing themselves and their beliefs.

A lot of what you find on the Internet is not real, a lot of what you see on television is not real. Many of our most cherished assumptions are not real, though they do in some sense correspond with objective reality. In such a Universe as ours how can anyone really know what is [i[real[/i]?

David: I suppose that there are contradictions and paradoxes contained within even simple words when used by atheists. That is why I am not granting any assumptions about the meaning of "reality" as it is used in reference to humans, physical things, the Universe and God.

David: I don't take offense at anything.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Ryanfire,

David: What is reality, as you understand it, and what can you really know about reality?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Madmax,

David: Then how do you, as an atheist, explain the existence of the Universe and your own self?

David: What does atheism have to do with facts or logic, if it is only and exclusively a denial of the existence of any deity?

David: As an atheist, how do you comprehend the Universe? As an atheist, how can you have any confidence in human intellect and perceptions?

David: Quantum mechanics appears like a perpetual, eternal incomprehensibility. The laws of physics appear to forbid forever human knowledge of certain things.

David: In your opinion naturalism can explain all things. You have faith in naturalism's ability to explain all things. Perhaps you would use different terminology, but the analogy between your faith in naturalism and my faith in God remains the same.

David: Here is my viewpoint, stated as explicitly as possible:

Naturalism cannot explain the existence of the Universe, naturalism cannot explain the origin of life, naturalism cannot explain the existence of humankind and naturalism cannot explain the characteristics of human personality, intellect and culture.

Naturalistic cannot explain any of these things. All supposed naturalistic explanations are in reality speculation and only speculation.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Kind Bud,

David: I don't care at all what happens to my flesh and blood. My body is designed to die and it will die.

David: The body does not have any real value for it is fated to die no matter what. The sacrifice of Jesus has meaning insofar as God makes it have meaning, the sacrifice of Jesus has meaning insofar as humans comprehend the implications of that sacrifice relative to their own lives.

Jesus' life, death and resurrection evidently don't mean ordinary things. Jesus demonstrated as much when He made no attempt to protect Himself from disgrace as He willingly set aside His own life for a message more valuable than life.

That ordinary things no longer have ordinary meaning is also evidenced by the transformation of the passover feast -- wine and unleavened bread -- into symbolic representations of Jesus body -- the blood and the body.

Those who interpret religious things in an ordinary manner cannot help but misunderstand these things.

David: Jesus did die, the implications of that death transform the Christian's view of what life and death really mean. Jesus' example transformed reality, overturning the standard human value of preserving life and avoiding death.

David: When I use words in a manner differently than you use them that serves as a motive for you to explicitly define your terminology so that we might find some common ground. I don't really know what you mean by "real" and "reality" so you will have to forgive me if I use these words differently than you understand them.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

HelenM

Originally posted by David Mathews:

Hello HelenSL,

Hi David

Fwiw, the 'SL' isn't really part of my name. My first username was Screwloose (I'm not totally sure why; 'just because') and when I changed to my own name Helen I kept the SL to link to my old username. My initials are actually HIM

David: I believe that it happened, though not necessarily as it is written. I don't believe that the written account was written to provide an objective history or news report of what happened.

No, it was written to inspire faith as best I can tell

But also, in those days they didn't have such strict delineations as we like to pride ourselves on between 'fact', 'history', 'myth' etc.

All I know is that Jesus did come to this Earth, He lived and died, and He rose from the dead. The gospel message in its most simple form is subtle and profound.

I don't know that I'd call it 'subtle' although I don't at all mind that you do . And I'm not saying I'm 'right' not to call it subtle, either. I just don't, myself.

Profound: I definitely would say that.

Deeper than the ocean, I might say

The possibilities for teaching from it are endless...I'd say that too.

David: I always consider people individuals, I don't lump people together. That applies to theists just as well as it applies to atheists.

Well, as I said, thanks for that.

I appreciate diversity and notice differences.

Me too and me too, I hope...

David: Thanks for your kind comments. It took many years of diligent effort to purge anger and impatience from my soul, though I can't say that I have perfected myself in any way.

Well, I think it shows...and I know it's not easy. In a place like this there aren't many theists (I think I'm right to call you a theist ) and most of the ones there are don't seem to have much self-control regarding how they respond to posts they don't like, directed towards them.

love in Jesus
Helen

David Mathews

Hello emphyrio,

David: No, I did not choose to become a Christian because it would make me happy. I do remember my conversion and the time in which I contemplated conversion. Desire for happiness was not a motive for my conversion.

David: I do deny these three possible reasons. Have you undertaken some sort of statistical analysis of the motives of Christians? Are these supposed motives anything more than your own speculation?

David: I denied your possible reasons and then I asked questions. I hope that you are inclined to answer questions.

David: There is no special challenge in fielding questions from ten different atheists at one time, and of the two theists there is only one whose comments are of any relevance to myself.

I have engaged more people in concurrent discussions in the past and I have the time, energy and stamina to do so. I have eighteen hours in the day and am not particularly devoted to sleep.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Jobar,

Excellent post. I appreciate your comments very much.

Sincerely,

David Mathews