Choosing a faith

You keep saying this but when we ask how your common sense deals with the problem of "who or what created the pre-existing intelligence" you never respond.Like the problem of suffering you have no answer so you behave as though these problems don't matter. If you're going to argue 'common sense', you can't stop when it suits you, you must follow the logic to its destination.

Absolutely. Firstly when He died there weren't any Christians. Also Jesus was put to death by the influence of the Temple authorities and then carried out by the Romans.His message and it's implications are for the world, not just one group.I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make. I think that you are essentially in agreement with the opening post, that essentially it is about taking on board the message that it isn't our theology that is important, but it is about having a heart that loves others as ourselves.

In the myth, the Jews took the death of Jesus on their heads.They wanted the rewards if Jesus happened to return, which he did not do.His suicide by cop failed, as the Romans were just doing the bidding of the Jewish temple."I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make."My focus was on the immorality, as stated, of Jesus asking us to abdicate our own responsibility and immorally put them on Jesus.IOW, we have to sin to be saved.Regards
DL

I have responded to that numerous times including in this thread. I have also responded to that numerous times. Yes, it is a problem for Christians. Part of the answer is that there can't be an ability to choose good if you can't choose evil. As far as natural suffering as in earthquakes and cancer, i simply conclude that they are a natural part of an entropic world with only one dimension of time, that will ultimately lead to a world that is not subject to entropy. I realize that is not a perfect answer but at this point it is about faith.I do see God in people's empathy for, and the desire to help those that are suffering.

This has continued to be one of your pet theories but I don't buy it. First of all, Christians can only make themselves look evil. One could argue, however, that one can do evil by remaking the character of Jesus to fit their own definitions...in essence using Jesus to pad your own ego and become a legend in your own mind. Gnock Gnock?

Ok, I missed it somehow, but I've seem Percy ask you at least half a dozen times - remind me it's a problem for humanity - nothing special about Christians yeh, but you know that's nonsense because you believe in heaven where suffering doesn't exist. The god that doesn't love you enough not to hurt and kill you could easily have created a world where suffering is not necessary - in fact he's done it at least twice according to your book. Even you know that this is not an answer at all. Your 'matter of faith' is obviously just a matter of hope. It has no grounding in either logic or the bible.
​ So you say, but not so much in hate, greed, avarice, jealousy etc etc?

You keep using terms of absolute like "rule out."
The best method doesn't deal in absolutes like "rule out" because it's smart enough to know that new information can change anything because we don't know everything.Again - if you want to go against the best known method - that's your personal choice.
If numerous scientists are making the same error you are - that's their personal choice. There is a self-correcting feature in Science, where results are tested by many, many different people and errors are continuously corrected. Regardless of who makes them. This is not possible while you simultaneously ignore the results of our best method in identifying truth and actively engage in methods known to be wrong when identifying the truth.It's not possible for you to do that.
It's not possible for numerous scientists to do that.
It's not possible for me to do that - which is why I don't do it.It's that's simple.-------------------------
Added by Edit: My above response to this is incorrect - I missed the change in your position, sorry.
My above response is only applicable if you continue to insist that identifying the truth is your highest priority.If you lower your priority of finding the truth to be only "very important" to you and not "most important" then your claims can be reconciled together.
The only thing to remember is that finding the truth is not your highest priority - therefore, the things you claim to be true cannot be trusted when discussing certain situations that approach the other things you find "most important."

Easily shown to be wrong:Choosing good vs. evil:I see an old lady wanting to cross the street. I can:
-ask if she wants help and follow her directions accordingly (good)
-ignore her (not good, and possibly bad... but probably not "evil")
-kick her in the shins and run off (evil)This choice remains if everyone's ability to rape children is removed.
Besides, choosing to "not rape children" itself isn't even "good." It's more like the bare-minimum of existing without causing evil.Removing some evil does not remove all evil.
It most certainly does not remove choice, or the ability to choose good.
Not even close.

PhatThe remake is is, not Jesus.Are these not doing what you are not recognizing as intelligent?Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.My pet theories are based on morality.Try to morally justify you putting your responsibility for your sins on another.You cannot.Regards
DL

I'm still very unclear of what you actually believe. I don't know anybody who thinks that way and I certainly don't.For myself Christianity is more about vocation than about salvation. We are called to live our lives based on the Golden Rule. I do believe in an afterlife, and although I would agree that this life does impact the life to come it is above my pay grade to worry about how that happens. I suggest it is quite enough to work towards having a heart that naturally turns to empathy, compassion and generosity to our neighbours and even our enemies. I'm happy to let God look after what comes next, but the Gospels are clear that it is about our hearts and minds, and not about believing in a specific doctrine.

I'm not going through over 500 posts to find the posts that were my response to this issue. I quoted Brian Greene where he tells that the mathematics of science tells us that time should be symmetrical and flowing backwards and forwards but that entropy limits us to only going in one direction. Some rather esoteric scientific theories such as string theory speculate on the existence of additional time dimensions. We can only comprehend our world with a single dimension of time. We can move around infinitely with our 3 spatial dimensions and I suggest that God could do the same with more than one dimension of time and so no creator of the creator is needed. Of course, but that wasn't my point. It is a question of how a Christian who believes in a God who created and loves us would allow for suffering. OK, this is pure speculation but it seems to me that to have the world without evil it requires beings that have freely chosen good in the first place. Firstly I understand much of the Bible to be understood mythologically, but I don't know the mind of God other that\n what we can see in Jesus.

Surely you know that this is just pseudo-scientific waffle? Of course you do, you're not stupid. But you're making excuses to hide a real problem. This is not a science issue, it's a logic/philosophical issue. If you invoke a creator being necessary to create us, you have to explain how to avoid the infinite regression of who or what created the creator.You have never answered this. Exactly - and you have no answer to that either. Again, you're making up excuses aren't you? Have you ever really researched the problem of suffering? You can fabricate reasons for choice but they don't stand up to any real analysis. But there's no choice with natural disasters. Bad things happen to good people. There is no answer to that - religion has been struggling with that for millennia. Sure, that's what it is. What we all see in Jesus is 'do as you would be done by' - not original but at least a good message. Your religion though is based on the mythology.

Are you trying to actually discuss this or are you just trying to score debating points. I'll try it another way. Science leaves open the possibility of an intelligent designer. I use your so-called best method for ascertaining the truth on subjects that it has answers to. There are things such as the existence of a deity that are outside it's purview. There are things that are essentially knowable, but there are also things that aren't knowable but believed based on experience and observation.My faith makes sense of my life and the world I live in. I have concluded and believed that there is an intelligent designer. I don't know that to be true but I am convinced that it is.

I believe God to be eternal and I simply gave one way that I see as a possible way of considering an eternal being. I just did. The fact that you don't accept my answer isn't the point. Hopefully we bot agree that as humans we should work to mitigate the suffering.

Why would I have to avoid an infinite regress? Its a basic issue. The book says "in the beginning God..." so logically the first cause is/was either defined as God or the guy who first wrote it. Either way, it is not an infinite regress beyond and before that point. Try basic common sense. The first (and only) guy who wrote those words was himself the initial writer. His writing was a definite origin. IF the God He described in his writing exists, then that God is an original thought either of Him/Her/Itself or by virtue of the writers intent. And to further clarify, what I mean when I say that God is/was an original thought either of Him/Her/Itself or by virtue of the writers intent, I simply mean I AM that I AM.