Choosing a faith

Not really. During that time I was in the Canadian Air Force, (RCAF), busily keep the world safe from those nasty commies in my beloved C130. Woodstock was a long way from the world I lived in.

I think that now you are boot strapping your circular reasoning.

Boy, did that train leave the station a long time ago. My kid's kids are having kids. I am now officially an ancestor.

I have now finished the first two entries by each of them. I actually relate more to Bart than I do to Tony. My criticism of Tony is that he is to focused on the Bible and not focused enough on Jesus. He isn't nearly as bad as Faith, but I use to tell her that she was a Biblian as opposed to being a Christian. I think that both of them are concerned too much with personal salvation. Sure that's important but Christianity is calling us to love in the here and now, and to make a positive contribution in this life.My problem with Bart is that in my view he has thrown out the baby with the bath water. I see the problem being that they both are two dependent on their understanding of how the Bible should be understood. They both seem to hold to a somewhat water-downed version of literalism. In Bart's case when he doesn't see his prayers answered the way that he thinks that God should answer them, and rejects the obvious things in the Bible that I also mostly reject, he rejects the whole package. (He rejects the resurrection which I don't.)However both of them appear from what they say to be living lives that are consistent with what Christ calls us to by sacrificially loving others, much more so than, in my experience, the vast majority, (including myself), of Christians do. Bart's life of living with the underprivileged sure puts me to shame.I would ask that this discussion stay with nwr and myself as I assume that we are the only two who have read the book. (I am about 1/2 way through and will return to it after I walk the do.)

I get it. I was just trying to have a little fun with this statement of yours."There is, indeed, a conscious intelligence behind it -- our own conscious intelligence."

I suppose but I think it is more than that. I think that being a professional Christian is very difficult. In some ways I suppose that it is a bit like being an actor who has to be in character all the time.He talks a lot about changing the world and making it a better place, and now he is doing the same thing as an humanist preacher. I think that ultimately he'll burn out there as well with a feeling of futility.I have mentioned this before but I read an Alan Kreider book called The Patient Ferment They didn't go around preaching the Gospel in general. They stood out in a world of violence by the way they loved and cared for each other, and the way they cared for their neighbours and even their enemies. People were drawn to that and then, if they showed interest in becoming part of their community, they would tell them about Jesus. I think that is moving back towards that but I'm not sure that either Bart or Tony saw it that way, but wanted to do it the other way around.

Thanks Phat. This is the only place I have ever even heard of it.

There is no question that a brain injury can affect personality. I think that it is a bit like breaking an arm. I know that these aren't easy questions. I guess I see a damaged brain in the same way that I see a broken arm. Ya, I relate to that. My problem, (which is largely a N. American problem), is that it is too focused on the self. It boils down to same thing over and over. It becomes about trying to control God, to get Him to do what we want Him to do. It might be to have a friend healed, it might be to look after me in the next life or it might be that very un-Christian prosperity gospel. If you read historical books including the Bible you can see that this is the goal of the majority of people of all faiths, It sure is in the Bible, including the Gospels. The disciples believed that Jesus, along with Yahweh, would lead them against the Romans resulting in a very large increase of status for them.However, when we read through the Gospels we can see that Jesus' call on our lives is about feeding the hungry, homing the homeless, visiting the prisoners etc. Sure we are called to pray for the sick etc and God will do what God will do. But we are also called to visit and care for the sick.IMHO we are also called to serve in community. My experience of churches is that most people look for a church that fits there desires rather than finding a church where they can best serve God. I have also found that it is quite amazing what a small church can accomplish when all the talents of the congregation are combined.One thing that I think Bart missed is that as a Christian we believe in a God of perfect justice, and that ultimately there will be perfect justice for the mentally ill, for the abused and for everyone else as well. I don't pretend to know what that looks like but I take it on faith. In the meantime we do what we can.I think that maybe Bart really lost sight of the that, and couldn't see past the life that so many are living now. However, He is doing what we all are called to, by doing what he can to make the lives of the poor better, and showing them love.

It doesn't seem to be a problem now, but what was happening was that I would take the time to answer a post and in the meantime there would be three more. OK I'll try again.
There is zero scientific evidence for anything beyond the physical.The Bible is evidence. It is obviously written to be believed although not always literally. You argue that it isn't reliable and give reasons. However, it still remains that it in fact exists. It might contain truths or it might be a total lie, but it is evidence to be considered.Beyond that we apply our own rational form our own conclusions. If we decide that there is some level of accuracy we follow a path of faith which should be to live a life to one degree or another in coherence with Christ's message.I've said all of that before but it never seems to be the answer you want to hear. OK, so you reject all world religions. What then do you contend is the nature of this supernatural being and what should it mean to our lives. Of course it has nothing to do with any religion. It is simply the question of what is the root cause of the evolutionarily process. It might be atheistic, deistic or theistic. My conclusion without any scientific evidence is that it is theistic. I don't even know what your conclusion would be. I have no scientific evidence.We can however come to our conclusions based on life experience and observation but that can lead to atheism or theism and anything in between.
As an example of that we have just had a major hurricane in both the Canadian Maritimes as well as Florida. If we come to the conclusion that a loving God wouldn't allow that to happen we will likely hold to an atheistic belief. On the other hand if we marvel at home people come out in love to selflessly help those in distress we might tend to a theistic position.I had written this: You then pull this out of that:How about using enough of the quote so that it doesn't distort what I was actually saying. There is no scientific evidence. We can all marvel at new life, the fact that we can see beauty if a flower, that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically. Sure, no scientific evidence at all. When Christian preachers start rationalizing the stories of genocide and public stoning in the Bible then I have more common with Chris Hitchens that I do with such a preacher. You keep saying that. This is not in a science forum. Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence.The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence. Nobody contests the belief that Plato, Socrates and others existed because of what we have written about them and they predate Jesus by 400 years. So what. The first thing you have to do is consider the author's intent. If you're reading a book by Agatha Christie then you know that it's not be taken literally. If you read Lewis' Narnia series you know that it's not meant to be understood as something that really happened but at the same time know that is also meant as metaphor. If you read Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" then it is clear that he intends it as a factual account. In the case of the Bible it is all 3. Of course though, that something that is written to be understood as an actual account of an occurrence isn't necessarily true or even close to true. ..and you know that how. Numerous people have written about Jesus over the years and you simply reject what they all wrote. Sadly here's the lead story from CNN today. "Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida'. Is that evidence on it's own that Ian hit Florida?

OK, but that doesn't mean that they are false. The Gospels are clearly written to be believed. As I said, we can all form our own conclusions about whether to belive them or not. In some cases we do know, in some cases we have a good idea of who wrote them, and in others we have no idea. The same point keeps coming up and so I give the same answer. First century Jews believed that a messiah, anointed by Yahweh, would raise up an army and kick out the Romans. Jesus had no army, no military conquest and was put to death by the Romans in a way that was extraordinarily cruel but more to the point here it was designed to humiliate and discredit the victim. Jesus was strung up stark naked and ridiculed. After initially come to the conclusion that they had backed the wrong horse and that Jesus was another failed messiah the disciples, without any discernible motive, started claiming that He had been resurrected, and began to spread the counter-cultural message of peace and love. Actually I left the faith and simply saw Jesus as a moral teacher for many years. I was actually visiting in your neck of the woods and was given a copy of Mere Christianity and started reconsidering my own position. About 20 years later I decided to reconsider my beliefs and started studying views pro and con and ultimately came to the conclusion that each book of the Bible has to be judged on its own merit. I read the debates between people like N T Wright and Dom Crossan and came to the conclusion the the resurrection was an historical event. THta is central to my Christian understanding.AS far as the other books are concerned I'm not claiming that they don't have truth in them as well. The Book of Buddha for example has pretty much the same message as what Jesus taught. We don't know that. I have read a fair bit on it and I came to the conclusion that Matthew was written by the apostle within 10 years of the resurrection. I realize that currently that is a minority opinion.Here is an interesting quote from this site and largely based on the Dead Sea Scrolls making it based on recent information. New Testament Documents

quote:

---

"The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analyzed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

---

The NT was put together, not by the Romans but by the various churches at the time. Of course there are contradictions. If people remember things differently. It does however show that that they aren't guilty of collusion.For many years in western Christianity the prophesies were considered to be about end times. It is now clear that the prophesies of Jesus were not about end times but about what would happen if they went ahead with a military revolution. I am not saying that Jesus knew the future. It was part of His message promoting non-violent revolution. I have gone over this several times. Scientific evidence is repeatable and can be confirmed, and yes it might start as observational. However the fact that we can experience beauty, love etc raises the question of why we have those expereinces. There is no testable answer but only are own individual conclusions.

There are the foundational documents for a new movement. They are biographical accounts written by 4 different men. Many people gave them so much credence that they dedicated their lives to following them, and many died for the stories in them.I say that not to give them authenticity, but simply to say that they were written in a manner with the intent that others would believe them. I'd also say that is pretty obvious and I have to wonder why you would ask the question.

I don't see an equivalence here at all. The real debate is centred on the question of the resurrection. Is it historically true or isn't it? The whole NT hangs on that question. My conclusion from all that I have read that, in that IMHO, it is the only thing that actually makes sense of the rise of the early Christian church. I know that numerous very bright people such as Crossan and Borg, both scholars studying the issue, to be unconvincing. Everything opposed that I have read starts with the idea that it isn't possible, so any other explanation is preferable. As a theist I believe that it could very well be, but not necessarily, true. Good point, but as I showed you in that document I linked you to, there is new evidence available. The idea of Markan priority only emerged 200 years ago and it totally discounted all of the external evidence. They would have done fine too.

Emotional responses can be measured with a brain scan. Is it the brain and the pathways in the brain causing the emotions, or is it the emotions causing the response from the brain. How can you test for that?

I observe that I consciously experience emotions, can appreciate beauty and be empathetic and even altruistic. I am told that's not evidence even though I can observe those things happening. You guys keep moving the goal posts on what is considered to be evidence. I am quite happy to agree with you on whatever you consider to be evidence, then things can be discussed on that basis. When I try to do that one of you will tell me it's wrong. I agree and I've said that before. Can you please read my replies not addressed to you so that I don't have to keep repeating myself. And again yes - and then we can come to our own conclusions about all of those things. Because that's the one I get asked about. And again you don't address my point. It again, is like saying that a robotic assembly line is on its own responsible for the widget it produces. This does get old. You complain about me repeating myself. You keep asking the same question and I keep giving the same answer that you reject. We can both observe that we are conscious beings. You maintain that it evolved naturally without any external intelligence being responsible at any level. I maintain that I am ok with it evolving through natural processes but that ultimately there was an external intelligence involved, whether it was only at the beginning or with intervention. Yes I have no proof. It is belief. ...and once again it is consciousness and all the things that go along with being conscious. My problem was that I wrote this as a complete thought."If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause."You split it into two sentences, separating the last part of the sentence from the first part which qualified it. I see conscious life coming from a non-conscious sperm and egg. I know we can see the processes that make that happen but that doesn't IMHO answer the whole question. My observation is that it brings me a sense of wonder and miracle; the sense of the beauty and joy in new life. As we all do regardless of our religious or non-religious beliefs. OK, so all you have is the pipe, the experience and the measure of the temperature. Then you can ask the question why is it hot. Sure, realistically you can go into another room and understand that it's hot water but say you can't. All you have is a hot pipe, and you can only speculate as to why it's hot. Of course it matters. If you know someone is intending their work to be taken as fiction you wouldn't research it in the same light as someone who writes something that they contend is non-fiction. I don't care about the animosity but I do care about being called a liar. I don't know why anyone would want to converse with someone they think is lying and I definitely am not interested in conversing with someone who calls me a liar. I'd like that as we both keep trying to find new ways of saying the same thing. Maybe we can narrow the topic down to one point; maybe my original point of the thread which seems to have been forgotten about a zillion posts ago.
​

You queried why I didn't use diffedrent emoyions. I simply gave 3 as examples and was certainly not trying and your examples were fine by me as well.