( I am responding to a message my fellow online user had posted. His message was in video form, so I can't quite paste in the transcript )
Me:
For now, I would just like to respond to the 'God is not a mythological god' argument. The obvious thing to say is that neither the Intelligent Spaghetti nor Lunos are 'recorded' myths, but that isn't good enough. The main point I think that Dawkins was trying to make is that all gods who have been seriously followed by people up until now, have shared an important characteristic. That is, none of their existences can be easily verified. I know, I know, you will cite several written statements of eye-witness accounts, the utter billions of people still believing today and maybe even 'miracles'. Actually, gods are only alive in 'our hearts', figuratively speaking. Gods exist through faith exclusively for now and that is why religion has no place in the areas of science, by the way.
Him:
I appreciate your honest answer. And yes, the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob isn't easy to verify. But there is a characteristic that I think Richard Dawkin has missed. The God of the Bible put a test to humans as to the honest integrity of his Word. If a future oracle spoken by God doesn't come true it is not the Word of God. And historically the future oracles of the Bible have time and time come to pass. The Israelites becoming prisoners for 400 years in Egypt was told to Noah hundreds of years before it occured. The captivity of the Israelites in Babylon was spoken less than 100 years before it occurred. Daniel's prophecy of the Empires of the Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans hundreds of years before it occurred. And most importantly the prophecies of the Messiah's birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection was written in the Old Testament hundreds of years before they occurred. Especially Christ' birth could not be manipulated, because Jesus couldn't have told Mary and Joseph where he was to be born.
It's a good attempt to label the God of the Bible into the box of mythological beings, but God is not man that He should lie. Thanks for your intelligent conversation with me.
Me:
Thanks for your response. I don't know enough specific details to comment on the different events you listed, but I did see a video where Douglas Wilson said the foretelling of Christ's resurrection was what made him confident about his beliefs.
Here's what I think. We know that most religious texts are said to be written by people. Moreso, we know the Old and New Testaments both had several authors. When it comes to proving something in physics, such as the photoelectric effect ( allowing for solar panels today for example ), the burden is very heavy and there is a wide review process that must take place before any results are taken seriously. Everything must be tested experimentally and the math has to match the outcomes. Similarly, if a drug company wishes to release a new vaccine, they end up testing their new compound for years. Even the law has a heavy burden of proof. Eye witness accounts not good enough to convict someone of murder. The evidence must be cold and hard.
Why is it then, that events affecting billions of lives are not put under the same scrutiny. As far as I understand, most of the proof is given in the form of written text obtained after first hand testimonies. There are no clinical records showing Jesus' time of death. As for the predictions, you have to at least admit that fabrications of the written evidence is probabilistically more likely the actual events really occurring. That is, imagine that Mary is your wife in this day. She gives birth to Jesus, but you know you didn't sleep with her. And say that this very event was predicted long before it happened. Isn't it true that given the existence of the prediction, Mary could still just sleep with someone else and lie to everyone about it?
All I'm trying to say is that you should have a little bit more doubt, because a little bit of faith may not always be warranted.
Him:
I'll share some opinions but I'll tell you why I enjoy talking and sharing with those who don't really hold to a faith in what I believe in. I have lived the majority of my life in a church bubble that was so far outside reality and what is really going on in the world. What I mean is that the christian church in general has adopted a false approach to life. It is monastic in it's interaction with people. And even at a young age, I felt strongly that the church was doing things wrong. So I am a big time critic and advocate of "wakeup and smell reality" as I like to call it with the church.
So in essence, I am in a paradox. I believe strongly in Jesus Christ and I desire to obey his teachings, his approach to life, his antagonism against religious piety, but at the same time I'm frustrated with the church in general. If you get what I mean. So I love interaction with people who are walking in truth, searching for answers and desiring to live this life to the fullest.
That's alittle insight into my world. I appreciate the interaction you and others who may be agnostic, anti-religious, or atheist.
If you take the idea that Mary could have found the passage in Isaiah referring to a virgin giving birth to the Messiah, you have to realize a few things. Mary's conscience would be ripping her from the inside from the time she came up with the false claim to the time she died. Also, her cousin Elizabeth also would have lied because she was told that her husband had an angel appear and say that their child would be the one going before the Messiah. And finally Joseph would have to hold fast to the lie. Not to mention the shepherds who shared with the whole town of Bethlehem, this lie as well as pagan astrologers who came from the East. Not to mention Herod would be responsible for believing an Israelites lie and would have to account for the bloodshed of all the firstborn Jews that he murdered. Next the prophetess in Israel would have to have come up with the same lie in order to prophecy that baby Jesus would be the rising and falling of many in the nation. I mean it just goes on and on. There are two many factors to assume that Mary shacked up with a centurion and then came up with the story. Remember Joseph, her engaged husband had the right to public execution and humiliation of Mary. Somehow he believed it to be true.
And, Jesus himself was a catalyst for change in Israel. He hated the pride of the Pharisees. Multiple accounts of Jesus being crucified are spoken of by many extrabiblical accounts.
Just something to consider. Thank you for your response.
No comments:
Post a Comment