That we are granted free will is still an unresolved debate. I believe we have free will because I can choose vanilla over chocolate. Others say you only think you can make that choice, but that choice was made before you chose it. But for the sake of argument, lets say free will is a proven aspect of human nature. There is still no proof that it was granted to us. Whether it exists or not is irrelevant unless you want to get lost in some philosophical cloud.
I’m ok with getting lost in a philosophical cloud. I’m there most times already.
Do you really believe that?
Well, it's easy enough to do.I’m ok with getting lost in a philosophical cloud. I’m there most times already.
I agree!
Here's what they hit this poor sailor with in seminary: St. Anselm's ontological proof of the existance of God! Made my head hurt:
If we , do indeed , have no free will, then what would be the purpose of life?
Yes, I remember that one from philosophy class. When any argument gets that wordy and begins to overlap on itself, it's time to start looking for the fallacies, which every one of those arguments from that class met with brutal rebuttal, although I can't remember by who, but I'm sure he was important.I agree!
[Even a] fool, when he hears of … a being than which nothing greater can be conceived … understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.… Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.
Absolutely! Modern scholars have whittled down the Gospels to arrive at a truer picture of the "historical" Jesus and most agree that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest and most reliable of the four. And since "The gospel has been variously dated between 35 and 74 AD, with the majority of scholars placing it between 66 and 74 AD—shortly before or after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.[7]' Quoted from Wikipedia, I assume that many eye witnesses were still alive.
Once we can agree that life has a purpose, we can take this up later.
Some of that may be true, and I've read similar arguments to that effect. If you believe it, then it sort of points to a historical Jesus. But much of what is printed in the gospels cannot be true. As such, there is not enough there for me to conclude that historical Jesus existed, because the bigger issue is that even if one historical Jesus did exist, he wasn't walking on water and doing magic tricks, which makes the gospels begin to sound more like Homer's Iliad than historical documents.
We are all "sons"(and daughters) of God, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice for his teachings. He knew that his actions would precipitate a backlash from the authorities(both Jewish and Roman) and that he would be "dealt with" in the manor that the authorities did back then...crucifixion.
Yes, my point exactly.
I agree to a certain extent! I do not believe in a Bible that was dictated by God, even though I consider it inspired! But I must confess that I don't go by the miracles listed in the New Testament but by the miracle of Jesus invading my sceptical heart! To me that's the biggest miracle of them all. And because this is so subjective I don't expect you to turn into a believer. One friendly parting shot
: Hamlet: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
That awful story alone would be enough you would think to cure people’s beliefs. Killing innocent children can’t be rationalized away by any stretch of the imagination.
It shouldn't cure people's beliefs, but it should warn them not to take everything in the Bible literally! I like the God of the New Testament better anyway! As stated once or twice before!
I believe life has a purpose.
Pick and choose whichever God is better. Even the Lutheran minister told us during religious instruction not to take the stories literally.It shouldn't cure people's beliefs, but it should warn them not to take everything in the Bible literally! I like the God of the New Testament better anyway! As stated once or twice before!
An older lady told me, to my great distress: "I think we could do without sermons!" I was shocked, but after a time of reflection I thought "maybe she's right!" I felt sorry for all the church goers who got a different Jesus with every new pastor. We can't help but be subjective, speaking from our heart and personal experience! Thank God, my main theme was love and acceptance. Can't go wrong with that ... in my subjective, flawed opinion!
IMO that Noah's Ark scripture was edited by a captive in Mesopotamian Jewish priest sect just like the creation text at the beginning of Genesis. Minus what they added, the original Moses scripture was just a large natural local flood conveniently ascribed to Yahweh that seems to be apart of several civilization's ancient myths. God for logical reasons I can easily argue, doesn't change what humans write in their (not His) Bible. Was the Bible inspired? Well in a few places obviously so in others partially so while in some not at all. The rest must be read as though recorded by science ignorant priest scribes with agendas sub-servant to their usually immoral ruling classes. Modern science has made the Noah's Ark scripture to be the most nonsense in that book to the detriment of the whole Bible's credibility that during this recent science era has been severely losing believers. Just because parts of the Bible are obviously less than true, does not mean it is not of immense value, especially for those that can get past its shortcomings.
I actually respect that in an odd sort of way, but I believe most of my atheist friends would fault me for it. Like you, I could justify believing in God, if I believed in God. And probably like you, I also realize this is as empty as a logical argument can be for the existence of God, because it's nothing more than argument for a belief. Still I respect that because of all the empty proofs, and apologetics for Christianity that I have heard over my life time, that is the only one that helps me understand the basis for Christianity, or any religion at all.
I am totally lost in what you mean by "The fact that we have free will might be what changes what ‘might’ be."
Funny thing about that; I am NOT religious, but I don't believe in abortion used as birth control. Women should be smart enough to use the actual products made for that. Your body, right? Be smart enough to NOT get it pregnant.
Well from your perspective of having no free will would mean that our life is pre-ordained. ( meaning we have no choice )
