You do realize the bible was written before men had a grasp of various modern concepts right? I would not call them 'idiotic' people. [which I must admit sounds as judgemental and condescending as you say most religious folx are] [a big ole mug of smug] Sounds like you are saying .. . . its Luck QUESTION: What is the science that tells us what is right and wrong? Sociology? Psychology? These more attempt to explain Philosophy? Alot of people would not call this a science. Rocket River
a case for a supernatural God to be known in a natural world from a Christian Pastor... This is not an attempt to prove God exists, but a thought as to why God might choose to reveal His existence in a way that doesn't satisfy man's natural desire for emperical data. By both Christian tradition and bible verse it seems alot of Christians agree that no man can see God, which is nice except if you are asked to prove He exists. Again by church tradition and bible verse it seems a majority of Christians also hold on to belief that Jesus lived on earth and was either God's son, God revealed, or just, you know God; or some combination. Which brings up an interesting point- suppose you can't see God and you can only know He exists in natural means if He chooses to reveal Himself somehow, well... naturally. One bible verse says that God can be seen in the things He created but then goes on to say that men won't take that as evidence... so for now let's leave out all creation as any evidence at all for a supernatural God. So where would God look to provide natural evidence for His own existence in the natural world men can measure, investigate and see? What method would be the best to reveal what exists but can't be seen naturally? What I want to bring up is the Jesus tradition- suppose that Jesus is the way God chose to reveal Himself. Many Christians have held that belief, Jesus is God or Jesus reveals God. I guess that would fit with alot of bible verses since Jesus said He was one with God etc. And traditionally that would fit with most Christian ideas that pretty much can be summed up this way- "If you've seen Jesus, you've seen God" And it also fits nicely with communicating a supernatural being in the context of a natural being. So for sake of point, I will just say Jesus is the natural revelation of the supernatural God. That would at least explain alot about God's character in a way any human could understand. Look at Jesus, He's just the same as God. This seems very smart on God's part because He skips over alot of 'proofs' that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted by just revealing himself as a living person to other living beings. I think there are some logical and intelligent reasons for 'God' to reveal Himself in this way. First, it prevents phoney or marred presentations. I can remember many times saying something like this, "God, if you really exist then don't let my grandfather die" or "God, if you really exist then cause the Oilers to win the NFL championship" While those kind of proofs could be used by God, they certainly would open a pandora's box of proof-events that would obviously lead to false assumptions and errors based upon corrupt evidence. And events never are faithful revelations of character since they are often misunderstood without understanding a person's character. And I think if God is going to reveal, His first obligation is to reveal His character or in simple terms, just what kind of person He really is. So the Jesus reveals God thing has some very interesting applications. One very important one is it reveals God as a human to humans and it also reveals God in relationship and relevance to human life. Now I am going to accept the Jesus reveals God method to make a more important point. I am not going to try to prove that Jesus is God, I am going to make it the support for my next point: By Christian tradition and bible verses it is also widely accepted that 'Christians, or Jesus followers, or Jesus freaks' (so called) reveal Jesus. WOW. Logically, Jesus reveals God's existence, Christians reveal Jesus' existence. Or in other words Jesus is just like God and Christians are just like Jesus... all of them (huh?!?!?!?!) And to take it one more logical step, unless Jesus is authentically and accurately revealed in the life of a Christian, then God cannot be revealed. This leaves God at an apparent ridiculously vunerable disadvantage: What if Christians do not accurately, consistently, and significantly reveal Jesus to the same degree that Jesus reveals God? There must be a valid reason for this method or God has failed the infallibility test. I will just suggest at this point that God cannot be known at all without an accurate human reference point. In points of nature, personality and character this is certainly true for the human experience... I don't know I am loved and what love is until I experience love etc. I think Jesus is fine as far as God using the right reference point, it is the use of Christians that Jesus chose that makes me wonder. By church tradition and bible verses Christians are poor at best and mostly failures to reveal a true and authentic Jesus. Not that they can't, but the majority of evidence in this scenario suggests they won't. Why would God use such a flawed plan and if He is infallible did He? Well, I personally have discovered that the plan is not flawed at all, if the revelation of Jesus is authentic the knowledge of God is revealed. There is over 2000 yrs of emperical data to draw confirmation and certainly enormous evidence that a corrupted representation of Jesus produces a corrupted revelation of God. I would suggest as my last point that this means of personal revelation through personal witness is the only credible and realistic way for God to reveal Himself. First, this method reveals God as a person which is consistent with our consciousness. We can relate to God as a person since we have the same conscious revelation of life as humans. If Jesus reveals God then we can satisfy our questions about His character, behavior and intentions. Christians, on the other hand seem to have raised every bit of skepticism for the God of Jesus' in recorded church history. And their (our) poor performance has justified in some way most objections to God's existence. But in spite of the failure rate it seems still obvious that only through life can life be understood and only through character can character be seen. In other words if you were to meet Jesus in my life He would be revealed to you in the ways God desires. And the only way that could maintain authenticity through out the centuries. I think this is the only way God would logically want to be revealed. In truth of character, personality and behavior. It makes a Christian an ambassador or witness to the person who is God. Perhaps I can best sum this up by saying where Jesus is authentically revealed in the life of a man, woman or child God has a great advantage revealing Himself in the natural world... it was the Apostle Paul who said Christ's true followers were the living letters written down for others to read. It is no wonder there is a limited view of the evidence for God's existence. Perhaps God has chosen a method that guarantees both authenticity, accuracy and yet allows great skepticism for the sake of that very guarantee. If you made it this far and you are still reading I offer you this... Christ did not tell His followers to go start an organization or write down a code of beliefs or crusade against anything, Christ told them to be His witness, to represent Him accurately. That's all. In other words I am suggesting that perhaps from God's perspective it is best that a man be an atheist than a believer in what is false about God. "Let your light shine"- Jesus
Yes, some of it is luck. Not all of it though. For example, the fact I was born with brown hair = chance. The fact I am at the top of the food chain = not luck. (natural selection) What is the science of morality? Not sure. Not really concerned though.
If that was the intent of the passage you posted, it did not succeed. To know something in a natural world you have to be able to observe it by natural means, and anything observable by natural means is by definition natural.
simplified. God (supernatural) became Jesus (natural) One we cannot observe, became observable in a man
Sure, but we can't infer anything about the supernatural God from the natural Jesus. Basically the idea that we can empirically observe anything supernatural is absurd on its face.
Im not going to total agree with you there because the fact that agnostist still leaves room for the posibility of faith. By the the statment alone they are saying it's a posiblility they there is a God but there is a posibily as well there isn't. Unlike atheiest who are more science relient who knows that god desen't exist in their eyes. Also it's basically a philosphy way of looking at the posibilities.
I don't think it is not observable I think it is sometimes undefinable . . unmeasurable. . . it defies the local logic of the now. Rocket River in time. . the so called 'supernatural' . . . well be defined and measured and understood. .. just as a child of 14 understands more than a child of 1 We are learning . . .
I'd like to go there with you RR, but, in the words of the late, great, Frank Zappa: "Who you jiving with that cosmik debris?"
