Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide (Page 6)

I had written a long post regarding logical inferences, and false logical arguments, but I re-read it and decided :"to what end".

Chucky I'll say this to you: When I was younger I was an "athiest", then from a personal place I understood that for me, being an athiest was the most illogical position on the religious debate. I personally felt that in order for me to say that there was no infinite God, I had to have infinite knowledge of an infinite universe in order to know for a fact that an infinite God did not exist. I just figured I wasn't that smart, so I decided to be an agnostic. I didn't believe in a God, but I certainly conceeded that one might exist. Then I thought what are the logical consequences of this ideology? If I was wrong what were the consequences? If my Chrstian friends were wrong what were the consequences to them? I felt that the logical consequences of not believing were far more dire than the logical consequences of believing and being wrong. Classic game theory, almost akin to the prisoners delema. That's how it started for me.

Bottom line, my life is far more fulfilling, joyfull, happy, peaceful and rewarding now that I am a Christian. I have lost nothing and gained everything. My belief is based upon both faith and fact. I've been an athiest, and an agnostic, and I now know what the Truth is, and I'll never go back. If you're ever interested in my personal "testimony" feel free to pm me.

I'm not sure I buy this. Ford continues to advertise heavily on one of the mobile Internet services that my company owns. No mention of any cutback on advertising dollars there... Besides, it's a little odd to pull out of advertising during the last month of a quarter when budgets are usually set.  I think it is plausible that Ford was responding to criticism. Their base is really in big trucks and SUVs that sell heavily in the central and midwest states--red states. I imagine that they were looking at GLBT publications as a way to branch out thier market but when push comes to shove they can't begin to afford to tick off their main base of customers so pulling out of those publications to quell criticism from loyal customers certainly makes a lot of sense.

And to what gain? I argue that by dying on the cross, he made himself a martyr. If Jesus had survived to be 90, his story would be less than compelling and lost to the ages. He certainly wouldn't have impacted change as he did.

As to the theological explanation as to why he died on the cross, as I understand it he "sacrificed" himself for our sins. One can only sacrifice what one can lose. If Jesus is a god, then he can walk the Earth again anytime he pleases. Therefore, it wasn't a sacrifice.

Just remember God loves you all.

Don't worry lighthouse, Chucky can take it. ;)

And now to gang up a little more. :)



Here's another go at it:

Because of The Fall, God required a perfect sacrifice in order for us to be reconciled to him. Sacrifice has another meaning in addition to a giving over or offering. The sacri in in the word sacrifice has the same root as the word sacred. Sacrifice means to make something sacred.

To sacrifice to a god is to offer that god something sacred. God the Father required a perfect sacrifice for our redemption. Since God is perfection, the only perfect sacrifice, or sacred offering, could come from God.

So God, who is infinite, entered into our history and into the constraints of time and space. As a being fully human, he could feel the agony of his passion. As a being fully God, he could be the perfect sacred offering.

It's true that God could do that over and over if he wanted. Actually that's what happens, in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Through the power of the Holy Spirit (God), the priest standing in persona Christi and those assembled offer up the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Son (God) to the Father (God).

It is the same sacrifice that happened on Calvary. It is not a rememberance or reenactment, but literally the same sacrifice. This is possible because God, who is infinite and beyond the constraints of space and time, is also omnipotent and may enter back into our world of the material and be truly present, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Meditating on this, a God who can be both beyond time and space and a God who can materially enter into our world, has helped me grasp the reality of being both a tiny speck in the vast ocean of the universe and, at the same time, a participant in the great drama of human life.

Christianity is the answer to how one can know and be known in a reality that, fully, is beyond our human comprehension.




Edited by dontracy 2005-12-11 9:33 PM

for a whole huge giant chunk of the world, Islam is the answer. Judaism is the answer. Hinduism is the answer.


I have tried SO hard to stay out of this! FOF has hurt me personally so many times. My brothers and sisters in Christ have hurt me again and again. Still, Ironically, Christianity is the answer to my questions too, including the question, "What does love mean, and how can I act more lovingly?", but being a "tiny speck" I don't dare pretend to know the answer for everyone. I just pray that everyone asks the questions.

Interesting. I take great comfort in the fact that I cannot grasp the infinite. Infinity nullifies the meanings of the words "time" and "space".

I have heard a similar argument to the one you presented above. What are the consequences of not believing: in effect, why not believe, what have you got to lose? Really though, can you just force yourself to believe because you're afraid that if you're wrong you'll go to Hell? How do you make yourself believe something when you don't believe it, or when you're not sure if you believe it? And why would I believe the story of Christ in favour of the stories of any of the other religions? If you consciously "believe" in Christ without feeling it in your heart, aren't you just fooling yourself? Also, does it make sense to hope that God doesn't notice that you never really believed?

I don't get it.

I don't think that you can force yourself to believe something when sincerely you do not. I do think that in exploring any aspect of human existence we ought to take advantage of the entire deposit of knowledge and wisdom in drawing our conclusion. In other words, stay on the journey of looking for the truth.

Since your search is in the realm of the philosophical, I would compare the great religious traditions and look at the philosophy and even the cosmology that they support. For a study of Christianity, a good start is Aristotle. Christianity is the pulling together of the personal God discovered by Israel, and the God of All Being, or the Logos the Word, discovered by the Greeks.

For some solid reading in what the Catholic Church teaches about the nature of reality, Thomas Aquinas would be excellent. He helped rekindle the study of Aristotelian philosophy, and helped establish the use of empirical evidence as a legitimate way of coming to know God. His work sparked the devolopment of scientific discovery in Western Civilization. Summa Theologica is his major work. I haven't read it fully myself. It is a major work. But there are many secondary sources for getting at Aquinas. One good one is Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox by GK Chesterton. There's also a new book out I've been wanting to read by the physicist Anthony Rizzi called The Science Before Science. I believe it deals a lot with the work of Thomas Aquinas.

Also, the first part of Pope Benedict XVI's book Introduction to Christianity would be good. The first part deals with the nature of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God, or rather Being, of the Greeks, Logos. Interstingly, B16 wrote this almost fourty years ago. In one meditation, he paints a picture of the ultimate reality of God that is completely in synch with discoveries in physics like string theory. If nothing else, it would be a good read to assure yourself that Christianity, at least as taught by the Catholic Church, is not anti-science, and believes in the use of all of the senses in coming to know God.

Yes, it makes sense to hope that God doesn't notice our unbelief. :) However, God knows all, so our hope is in vain. Even a Saint as great as Augustine struggled with doubt. He said, "Lord, I believe in you. Help me in my unbelief." Don't worry, when it comes to doubts about faith, you're in good company. ;)




Edited by dontracy 2005-12-12 9:55 AM

Thanks for the reading suggestions, Don. I'm sure that my Dad will also be interested. He wrote a book about his religious beliefs.

What's your Dad's book?

BTW, Montreal is one of my favorite cities. :)

[edit to add:]

Oh man, now I'm remembering the best meal I ever had in my life.

I was working on a film that was being edited at the CBC studios in Montreal. One afternoon, a bunch of us went down to Old Montreal for lunch. We were the only ones in the restaurant, but there must have been ten or twelve of us.

The restaurant served French food, and the owner pulled out all the stops to be sure that everything was perfect. There were a couple of New York upper west side foodies in the group, so perhaps the owner wanted to be sure that they were satisfied.

It went on for hours!

Course after course. Each one matched with the perfect wine. It was unbelievable. We threw away the menu and threw ourselves on the mercy of the owner. I just don't have words to describe how good it was. It was a religious experiece. ;)

I don't search for the best meal anymore, because nothing could top that one.


Edited by dontracy 2005-12-12 11:17 AM

It's self-published, called My God! One of his many retirement projects.

You should come up to Montreal for the triathlon festival in September. Almost a guarantee that you'll set a PR.

Opus, I just added an edit to the post above yours, about part of my love for Montreal.

Why the PR guarantee?


Edited by dontracy 2005-12-12 11:19 AM

Because the swim portion is in the Olympic rowing basin, so is protected from the wind, has no current and almost no waves, the bike portion is on the Grand Prix circuit, so the quality of the asphalt is better than anywhere and the course is basically flat, and the run portion is around the Olympic rowing basin, so it is dead flat.

The point I was trying to make was the specific qualifier that my belief "started" with that ideological change. For me I always assumed I was holding the most logical positions by being an athiest. However, I slowly changed that belief over time, that was the start. If you asked me know what happened, as a Christian I would say it was the Holy Spirit at work in my heart. Every journey starts with a first step. This change from athiest to agnostic to Christian was my first step. My Christianity is not now based upon that. I was simply trying to show that for me athieism was illogical.

I agree with you that if what I described was the extent of my belief, that is it began and ended with such a shallow rationale, then it may not be a true belief. That change was simply square one for me, and that was many many years ago. The Holy Spirit tends to reach out to each seeker in the way that is most effective for that particular persons conversion. For me it was forcing me to re-define what I thought was a logical position. Worked on me, may not work on others because others may not think in the same terms I did/do. I hope that clears things up.

Edited by ASA22 2005-12-12 2:11 PM

Um, this is where you are wrong. I didn't not say that. Reread the thread.

One can't win a religious discussion period. The fact that I ask for logic and people will use the absense of it as support, says all I need to hear. The fact that I demand a logical explanation makes me a man of reason. Last I checked that wasn't stupid.

I have followed a similar road. Raised a Baptist/Lutheran (several different churches - all of them my parents made me go to, but never went to themselves), became athiest in high school, turned agnostic in my early 20's and that's where I have stayed since. I openly admit that there may be a god. I just invite anyone to prove it. For you to say you "know the Truth" (I'm assuming about the existence of a God) then that's a pretty bold claim. I'm assuming that your claim doesn't rely on your feelings and emotions, or the leap of faith that you took, but on something quantifiable. Show it to me and I'll be a believer

Reminds me of Jeremy Camp's song "Walk by Faith"

I will walk by faith, even when I cannot see

No, that's fair, and ganging up is never an issue. So if I understand what you and Don are saying, Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice/offering from God (Jesus' father) to himself (God - the father) so that we may get into heaven. Jesus experienced death and pain along the way but knew he would be through it in several days time and as a God, knew what the outcome would be. Jesus still sits by God's side and both God and Jesus can walk the earth anytime they please and die anytime they please.

Now play devil's advocate (pardon the pun)..

If you were a God how would you let EVERYONE know the way you wanted them to live their lives - this is the goal after all right?

I'm guessing that you'd have a better game plan than what has occured to date.

Chucky, what is the relationship between money and Objectivism in Ayn Rand's philosophy? I don't know, but I'm wondering if there may be something analogous here.

You and I disagree about Objectivism, yet if we met in the marketplace we could exchange goods and services using money. It would work, because we both believe in the value of money. But that belief is based on faith, at least according to the philosophy that I live by.

So perhaps the next day when we met in the marketplace we could not exchange goods and services, because I've suddenly lost my faith in money and you do not posses something else that I may want instead.

Is faith necessary even in a philosphy of enlightend self interest? In this case, faith that we will continue to both agree that there is an underlying value in money, even though we can not prove it empirically.

If so, then you are already living in a way that requires faith. If I've misstated something about Randian Objectivism, I look forward to your correction.


Edited by dontracy 2005-12-12 3:12 PM

Instead of dissecting my words, attack my premise which is "There was no sacrifice as one can't sacrifice something they can't lose."

To address your point that belief requires a leap of faith, I believe that George Washington walked the earth and was the first President of the United States. I can't use any of my senses to know he existed. There is however overwhelming proof that he did and that he was in fact the first president. So yes, I do believe that George Washington existed and was President, and it didn't take much of a leap of faith to do so. The claim "Jesus Christ is God" is such a bold proposition and requires a massive leap, one that I can't make just because someone tells me to. I need the same amouont of overwhelming evidence available to me that Washington was the first President - if not more because the claim is all the greater.

Problem is you're wrong about your assesment of those who followed Jesus. Not only did he attract the disenfranchised he also attracted the powerful. A Roman appointed tax collector; Mary Magdaline was a wealthy widow; Nicodemus and Joseph of Arematheia were both wealthy jews and in positions of power within the Jewish leadership. Paul (Saul) could hardly be said to be disenfranchised. The Roman Centurian that converted at the crusifiction was neither poor nor powerless.

Later in this thread you claim that you argue 'Logically" however, certain of your premises are self defined and set out as tautologies or absolutes, when in fact they are self serving definitions. Thus, if your self defined tautology/definition is violated you make the faulty arguement that since your definition is per se a tautology or per se correct any thing that violates that definition is per se wrong. The problem is of course the logical falacy that if your self defined term is inaccurate your entire arguement is false. I believe you have put forth a logical falacie in defining the term "sacrifice". You defined it, assert that that definition is a trueism and thus anything that violated that definition is inaccruate or illogical. The problem is that your definition may not be as accurate as you assert. It's not "logic" it just has the sound of "logic" because you have defined it as such.

My next question is this: If you are an athiest what do you care? Really, why do you care that people believe in any devine being, whether Christian or not. As an athiest you know there is no God. (The logic of this knowledge aside for the time being). And unlike a Christian that would want to convince someone of the existance of God as 1) a dictate of the Bible and 2) as concern for a persons eternal soul, to what end would an athiest seek to convert someone to their position? If it is debate for debate sake, well that I understand and this debate is often fun. However, if it is not debate for debate sake, then why?

My experince with athiests is that no proof other than producing the actual Boby of Christ before their very eyes would satisfy them. There is more proof to support the existance of the people, places and events in the Bible than there are to support the existance of Troy. Yet, the existance of Troy is presumed legitimate. There is an entire field of Biblical archeology that has time and again found proof of the peoples, places and events of the Bible. Geological evidence has proven the exitance of "great" floods throughout human history. There is more contemporanious writtings regarding the life of Jesus Christ than almost any first century individual. There are far more writtings than appear in just the Bible.

Can the miracles ever be proven. No. But secular scientists have for decades held biblical scientists to higher standards. Biblical Archeologists often are scoofed at as soon as they put forth any theory that tries to tie a find into the Bible, regardless of the amount of evidence. yet, the same quantum of evidence is accepted as sufficient if the theory does not deal with the bible.

You also insist that we "show the proof" of Christ as God. What proof would you require? Physical proof of the works of a man that occurred in the first century? How would that proof take form...writtings, eye witness testimony?

Lets start here: I'm going to assume that the amount of proof needed to prove the mere existance of a person is the same for any ancient person, be it a person in the Bible or a person of historical significance. If that is so, then without a doubt I can at least prove the existance of the man Jesus Christ. In fact there is more contemporanious writtings regarding Jesus Christ than almost any other first century individual.

Which leads us to the next issue, the proof of Christ's devinity. I'd ask the same question, what form of proof would you need? Is eyewitness testimony sufficient? Are contemporanious writtings needed? If you doubt the writtings contained in the Bible, then other contemporanious writtings that are non-biblical? So what is the quantum of proof you need, and is it the same that you would require to prove the existance of any other ancient act? What proof would you need of Christ say as opposed to proving that the Trojan war occurred?



Edited by ASA22 2005-12-12 3:59 PM

Say you. I don't take the words of the Bible as truth.




Definition from dictionary.com: Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.

I don't think I'm misusing the term sacrifice. If Jesus is a god, what did he forfeit?

But a good attempt at misdirection



I'm not an aethiest, I'm agnostic as I don't presume to know if there is a god. It's primarily for the sake of debate. But I will say this, If you joined a cult, I'm guessing you'd want me to intervene. But really I'm just having fun with this.



His existance isn't what I'm calling into question, it's the assertion that he is God.



It's because the claim is so bold. Anytime you say "God was here" you're gonna get some kickback.



I want proof of God, not proof of a man's existance. People cloud the issue here often. But look at it from my point of view, do you think that he has convincingly shown that he's a God or the son of a God? Why leave it to question?



I don't dispute that Jesus the man walked the earth. It's his claim of being the son of a God.



Ahh, now we get to the heart of the matter. Any form of proof would work that is grand in scale. In this day of mass media, I could accept quite a bit. I could probably start a whole thread on this one.