₦airaland Forum

italo:
How convenient to argue against your own view of the Christian faith.

It makes you look intelligent and broad minded.

It guarantees that you win the argument.

Clap clap.

I was being honest. Christianity goes far below nihilism by asserting that man's very existence is not just purposeless but entirely useless by sin hence Jesus comes to Earth for the only purpose of redemption. Look whose talking.

theunusualmoon:
............................
The last time I checked you and I originated from the same source.......If you feel otherwise Please tell me why and also state your source.

Obviously everyone knows origins suggest a source, so you are not helpful enough with the details by mention "I originated from the same source"! but the obvious question is what is your source?!

The purpose of a Christian is either to sin or to go to heaven. Christians, very simpleminded set of people.

theunusualmoon:
@kay17
"A preliminary question for you, do you think man concretely knows his precise origins with a sufficient deal of certainty?"
....................
I would take the word "man" in there to mean myself.
I concretely know my precise origin and with all certainty I was made by a being more superior than I am.I know this because I relate with him and I feel his presence.

Oh! you speak about your personal origin only. I thought you were willing to discuss the origins of humanity. Nonetheless thanks for the honesty.

'We' would be privileged to hear about your origins.

Image123:
Sums up what Jesus did for us.

https://www.nairaland.com/1153593/necessity-jesus-sacrifice

This thread should suffice for that discusson

BraveGuy:
Back to the OP....


#1. It's a privilege to know and have a relationship with the Almighty God. But why do some believe (and are ready to die by that belief system) and others simply don't?

To be honest, it is a mystery, which we may never be able to resolve on this side of life.

Even within the Church, people's belief system have their levels. For example, some still believe that God's temple is the physical cathedral and they look after it and behave themselves like angels when they enter the building, yet Jesus says WE (the totality of our persona) are the temple of God, and these people don't care what they do with their body - fornication, cheating, hatred, idolatry, covetousness, etc.

But an insight is here:
Matthew 13:11 - "He answered and said unto them, Because i[b]t is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given[/b]."

Why? Because you are a disciple (you chose to follow) and they are not.

#2. It is also re-assuring that one is not living an aimless and empty life.

This is very much the Western conception of a God being you subscribe to.

I was going to talk about the action of love. Within our subconscious, we create a list of priorities with the most valued at the apex and to which we lavish our deepest love. As an action we equate the most valuable with the highest price: our very life.

Runwellnow:
Kay17, This is not an evidence that we are not interested but what is your attitude, please, to these matters?
If you want to get at the truth then I suggest, if you have not already done so, that you read "Is there any Convincing Evidence for God?" on the Wallington Gospel Hall website, and "God Does Not Believe in Atheists" and "Is Somebody Out There?" by John Blanchard, and "Cries of the Heart" by Ravi Zacharias, (in case you might not have come across him, he is a Christian philosopher with talks also on Youtube), Reasonable Faith website, and concerning Evolution that you look at "Creation Ministries International" and "Answes-in-Genesis" and there are others.

If you want to get to the truth then I will try and help.

This is more like an abdication. You have effectively 'outsourced' a discussion to external apologists. I'm not unaware of these authors, but I find them to place an undue emphasis on faith. Faith in my belief is too subjective to form a concrete foundation.

theunusualmoon:
........................
We had no knowledge of flying but somehow we built and still build planes........
We had no knowledge of medicine but somehow we now have X-ray machines......
There are so many things we had no knowledge of but uniquely we had faith in ourselves and we started thinking of what we felt could make the earth better and easier for us.First we thought of them(planes,submarines,sky scrapers) and we built them
At least the GUYS that built the plane or the submarine didnt have any archaeological facts to turn to.did they?
And besides a plane can't tell you the name of its builder.All it has are features that point out when,how and which company built it......
If the first plane could talk,it'll probably tell you it came about by evolution or there's no historical/archaeological fact about its history,therefore it just appeared suddenly on earth and not on mercury where it would be scorched by the sun 24/7.
And even when you lay your hands on the plane's manual and show it to it.......the plane will tell you that manual was written by a human therefore its pure fiction.

Nonetheless what matters is that you have the knowledge, please take us through the epistemological steps to gaining your knowledge that man was a creation.

Kay17:
A preliminary question for you, do you think man concretely knows his precise origins with a sufficient deal of certainty?

theunusualmoon:
........................................
A sufficient deal of certainty? Yes.

Billyonaire:
Soul is Operating System of the human hardware, Spirit is the electricity that activates the hardware and OS to work perfectly. The mind is the Hard drive. Hope you understand.

your explanations compete with modern scientific explanations.

UyiIredia:
If you deny that life is a coded system I can understand your confusion in discerning 'long-winded claims' and "perfectly rational statements".

Ok!

freeradical:
You wanna know what the spiritual things are? Let's start with a question....What becomes of Kay17 when he bites the dust?

If it is not a self evident answer, I don't see why you ask me. The simple truth is you can not stand by what you say. Spirits can as well be works of imagination.

gatiano:
THE Creator. "THE" with an emphasis.

The article used to describe the creator is irrelevant, what matters is whether the universe is indeed a creation.

UyiIredia:
It will be a waste of time since I've repeatedly made my points on various threads only to be misunderstood. However, while premise 2 MAY be contended on the basis of it been based on humans making coded systems like computers; premise 1 is a scientific fact that was already cemented even before the DNA was discovered. I'm surprised you will even dare deny it.

Which was equally unsatisfactory. I remember you kept hammering that the human brain in its isolated physical state was not conscious and other long winding claims.

The origins of man lie in the past, and as a result the truth about our past can only be derived from historical sciences such as archaeology. We do not have the privilege of written records nor oral witnesses, hence we must resort only to modern science. Given that historical sciences are our only source into the past, we have no knowledge whatsoever that man was a 'piece of creation'.

Now to theunusualman.

Runwellnow:
Kay17, you're obviously very interested in philosophy or you wouldn't have joined this discussion. Given that this is the case, it would be interesting to know where you stand. It's fairly obvious that I am a Christian Theist, but what's your system?
As to your questions concerning God and the dawn of time, I think one of the most important things we can do here is try and clarify in our minds as to what we mean when we talk about God. The God of the Bible is regarded as the only non-contingent being, self existent and self sustaining, requiring no prior cause. He is His own reality, and indeed must be, if He is to be called 'God' at all. If you're interested in looking at this further then why not check out 'Reasonable Faith', an excellent website where people a good deal more competent than I am deal with this along with many other philosophical and theological issues.

Is this an indication that you are not interested? I'm commonly referred to as an atheist.

UyiIredia:
Chai ! Please read Signature in the cell by Stephen Meyer. You need some schooling on this ish desperately.

Just for the sake of NL, could you identify and espouse the key points here?

theunusualmoon:
.........................
If man was not created how did man come to be?

I was expecting an elaborate argument with well structured layers upon layers, since your intention was to settle a centuries old debate.

Note, that you earlier claimed to know man's precise origins with sufficient certainty, so I expected a lot.

So in very few words, I'm disappointed.

theunusualmoon:
...................................
He knows what he means and I know what I mean.Advise him to proceed.

Reyginus:
That is not what he meant. He is asking if it is okay to use Mankind since you say 'man' is a bit vague.

It is all good, theunusualmoon can proceed.

Reyginus:
No. That is more like a sermon on trusting on God. The same way a child trusts and hopes on his father of a particular gift he promised, because, by all standards, he has not broken any of the rules that qualifies him for the gift.

In skepticism, the child, due to ignorance of the reason his dad didn't get him his gift last time, he begins to doubt if his father will get him anyone today. The main his dad didn't get anything for him it is to test him and see how he handles himself when the expected does not show up. A precocious child may ask questions and come to understand his reasons.

The same thing happens when a Christain doubts. It will only be unhealthy when the Christain knows or have been told the reason for the delay but still doubts.

This application, right?

LordReed:
No I am saying inability to physical perceive the cause will not negate the effect.

As for skepticism and compatibility with faith, I would say they are "compatible" on certain levels. Let me illustrate by using the biblical account of Mary when she was told she would bear Jesus, she said "How can this be seeing I have never had sex", that in my opinion is healthy skepticism.

No what you would actually have is a shrouded cause with an effect.

Good.

^^

Is mankind ok?

Outside salvation, what else was Jesus in our lives?

Reyginus:
Rational Skepticism. Skepticism that ceases to be when what is true has been thourougly and logically established.

Now, apply that to the use of faith.

Gombs:
Well, yeah...you've got a point there...but, at this instance the name of the disease is irrelevant, the faith is!

Wasn't it foolish of him not to take advantage of God provided medicine?

LordReed:
There would have been no need for salvation if only right choices could be made but as it is everyone still makes mistakes.

So that takes us back to sin.

LordReed:
That's why I said the effects.

This thread is for you to express your mind on what the place of healthy skepticism on faith.

But as a necessary aside, an effect does not 'lead' to the cause, otherwise you would be implying that the effect is the 'cause' of the cause.

LordReed:
Distortions arise because of human bias and its solidification through tradition. Do a word search in the Gospels for the word sin and you get only a handful of references and the majority of them in the Book of John. What I am trying to point out is that the good news is not primarily about sin. What Jesus came to do was show us the path way to God's kingdom. His emphasis was not on law but on love, the idea that if you loved your neighbour you'd do him no harm.

The over focus on sin is only a distortion and arises because of our human shortcomings and bias. Our glasses are distorted by our failings but I dare anybody to follow the law of love and see whether he will be very concerned with sin.

Salvation is like a rescue, a rescue from danger which is sin. So is it possible for there to be a salvation without the danger of sin? I don't think so.

i. You did not answer the second question, because if you did, you would have realized how vulnerable your position is.

ii. My second contention with you is that these quotes of yours don't flow together;

Runwellnow:
The fact that we exist shows that someone outside of time, matter and space must have created the universe and started the process of life. What knowledge, and therefore, answer do you have as to Who that Great Being is and what, and how great, is the source of your knowledge? "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable ..." (The Bible - 2 Timothy c3v16) The great Creator Being has been revealed in the Bible, which is available to us human beings, despite the fact that we have corrupted our ways upon the earth with its impact on creation.

Runwellnow: We know that nothing produces nothing. Consequently if ever there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, then nothing would have come into existence from it. However people and things do exist. Therefore there could never have been a time when absolutely nothing existed. So something had to have always been in existence to start the whole process of time, space and matter. That ever-existing being is who we call God.

Since you have effortlessly reasoned why Nothing can not exist, you concluded Something must exist which invariably includes all existent entities including you and I, time, space, energy and everything else. So you don't have a starting point from which to begin to argue about time, space, you and I beginning to exist. I hope you understand me. In other words, why is God isolated as the only Something.

iii. Think about this carefully, time itself is a progression of motions and events, it constructs action. Now, how is it possible for GOD to create a Universe in the absence of time. How is cause and effect possible in the timeless realm?

LordReed:
More of a superimposition than a conflict, similar to aerodynamics superimposing on gravity.
I believe someday we may create the tools to detect this metaphysical realm that however doesn't mean we cannot experience the effects.

yes, it could be possible to experience such a reality but our senses are not suited to that kind of reality and theoretical doubtful in that sense.

LordReed:
Yes.

So my question and OP tries to find the convergence between faith and healthy skepticism, because our senses and gadgets cannot detect the metaphysical, we have no confirmation mechanism to back up faith. Yet faith does assert sometimes that the metaphysical reality conflicts with our own reality, right?