Evidence for God from Science

Some truly fascinating stuff here, but am I the only one who sees this entire argument as an overwhelmingly moot point? (Yes, I'm making an effort to re-hijack this thread back onto the original track)

As much as I absolutely abhor the "The Scripture says X, I believe the Scripture, therefore, X" arguments, I think that's really the only way to address the problem of the confusing doctrine of the absolving of our sin through Christ.

Quite simply, the whole concept completely crumbles if an attempt is made to isolate it from the premises of Christianity. If the notions of God, Christ, etc. are true, then it makes all the sense in the world. If not, it's not even worth discussing.

Personally, I was very baffled by this idea of Christ dying somehow being tantamount to God forgiving us... and still am, but I think that a discussion of 'how' this works is simply futile, as it's almost solely an effort to try to 'get inside the head' of God and figure out why He decided to do what He did.

"Note that I don't - for now - subscribe to what seems to be the gating premise to your arguments, on the whole, that there's a Christian God and the Bible is his divine word, so intricately circular arguments based on the scriptures aren't going to help answer my question.

I think I will have to remain perplexed about this."

Sadly, I think this is one situation where it's nigh impossible to fashion a non-circular argument. So you're probably right. And if a Christian whom has given this more thought would like to counter this, please do. I will admit that I'm far from an expert on the doctrine of salvation.

Now for something completely different. On political truths... Oh the beauty of opinion. This is preicsely why I absolutely loved my debate course if High School. It was possible to completely ignore my own feelings, and in the course of one week, put forth two completely polar proposals, and thoroughly debunk any opposition. Funny how that works, isn't it? In matters of politics and religion, we tend to be flooded with the complete antithesis of 'seekers." In those realms, hardly anybody bases their opinions on evidence: they merely find evidence to support their opinion.

I'll leave the psychological and philosophical ramifications of that for another day, and just chalk it up to that preposterous thing we call "Human Nature."

.
.
My feeble mind would say to you...the issues and ideas behind salvation are a moot point to all that don't seek to understand. In other words, you say, "Please explain it to me and if it is a good explanation, I'll look to believe it." But that is not how (apparently) it works. You are here to find answers to something you have no asparations of actually believing in. In plain terms, you (and others) don't find a need in a God and so all arguments and/or proofs and evidence mean nothing as Christianity means nothing. It's like you going into a village that has not been touched with modernization at all with nothing in your hand but a science book (with no pictures) and trying to prove that cars exist. You can explaiin until you are blue in the face...maybe you can even fashion a "car" from bamboo sticks to give them a visual...but you'll never be able to convince them of the existence of a car because what would they do with a car in the jungle? They have no need of a car, don't want it and so they really don't care if it exists.

Circular as the argument may seem, the Creator (Jesus...as Christianity believes) came down and made himself like his created. While among "us" he told us that many will see and yet not see. Many will hear and not hear. Why? Because the have no need for a God. They don't see themselves as vile and deceitful. They look at history and point fingers, but don't realize that they too will become part of history and future generations will point their fingers and gasp at our deeds.

I hope you understand my point. If you don't feel a need for God...if you don't feel that as good as you are on the surface, what's reallyinside is a vile, cruel, decietful person that when it comes down to it, will do just about anything to survive.

Well...Christianity is different. Having the assurance of living with the Creator in an immortal state releases oneself of the selfishness of "survival of the fittest" syndrome that plagues humanity. It matters not if we die because in dying, we will live again.

So while a person is content in the picture of humanity painted now for thousands of years, content with living and dying and being no more, then the saying, "they will hear but not hear, they will see but not see" remains the explanation given and the one that is the basic reason.

Matthew 13:14 NIV wrote:In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" `You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

The skeptic demands proof of which there is no proof..even of the simple things that we can see with our eyes! The great philosophers and scientistscould not/can not prove what is good and what is right...and yet everyone thinks their list of rights and wrongs are the correct list! There is no "proof" of where humanity came from. How can the skeptic then ask for proof of God? Evidence on both sides...but no proof.

Matthew 12:39 NIV wrote:A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

...and what is the sign of the prophet Jonah? The preaching of repent and be saved! That's all the skeptic gets!
.
.

Bavarian: I would like to try and clear up my original post a bit.

I consider discussing the 'method' of salvation to be moot, if the common premises that God exists, and Jesus is his son, etc. cannot be agreed upon.

Because, as I tried to communicate earlier... if operating under those premises, it can make all the sense in the world. Without those premises, however, the entire idea is meaningless, and therefore questions from a skeptic that ask "why does salvation work this way?" are as unintelligible as "why does God teach against fornication?" or "why does God teach love and compassion?"

I would compare the point to the skeptic who may ask "Why did God make us desire sex, and then teach that it can be immoral?"

Surely it's an interesting question, as is the doctrine of salvation. However, the mere existence of an unanswerable question of God's nature doesn't, in my mind, lend any weight to arguments for his nonexistence.

I'm not asking for proof in God, as nice as it would be to open up the newspaper one day and see a headline that ends this millenia-old debate.

In summation: I don't feel the question of 'how salvation works' is an issue that can be formed into a cogent argument for, or against, the basic tenents of Christianity, because it's an issue that has to be discussed in the matter of accepting those basic notions.

Hope I've cleared up my stance on that.

Snoogins47 wrote:Some truly fascinating stuff here, but am I the only one who sees this entire argument as an overwhelmingly moot point? (Yes, I'm making an effort to re-hijack this thread back onto the original track)

I think I'd agree that it is moot, but when a question about a doctrine within a faith is asked, then I think an explanation or response should be given.

Snoog wrote:As much as I absolutely abhor the "The Scripture says X, I believe the Scripture, therefore, X" arguments, I think that's really the only way to address the problem of the confusing doctrine of the absolving of our sin through Christ.

I really don't see where the problem is with the "idea" of Christ dying for our sins. I see no logical rules being broken and it is thoroughly consistent. The only thing I can see is that some just don't "feel" that it is right, just as I "feel" it is right. While I have faith that I can accept Christ's attonement for my sin, and such a concept is indeed recorded in Scripture—I think your syllogistic argument above downplays too much the theology and reasons behind attonement. This is not a unique concept to Christianity... and the only reason I can see for someone rejecting it is perhaps because, "Christ dying for my sins does not seem right. It does not seem right, therefore Christ did not die for my sins." This is the strongest case I see can be made against this doctrine. And so any explanation that is given, isn't necessarily an argument, but rather an explanation towards helping this idea to have more sense to someone it doesn't.

Snoog wrote:Quite simply, the whole concept completely crumbles if an attempt is made to isolate it from the premises of Christianity. If the notions of God, Christ, etc. are true, then it makes all the sense in the world. If not, it's not even worth discussing.

If one asks a question such as, "why did God become incarnate in Christ to die for our sins?", then such assumes many premises to Christianity. It is then unfair and dishonest to say a few posts later (as Ray appeared to do so) that these same assumptions in the question can't be used in a response (e.g., notion of God and sin?). If one asks the question, then they have to expect any reply will contain notions implied in the question as accepted. Whether such notions are true, well that's for another thread perhaps. But I would thoroughly agree with you Snoog, that if such notions aren't accepted to begin with then whether Christ died for our sins "is" really a moot point. And perhaps this was Ray's problem, as he didn't ever really accept the notions implied in his question to begin with.

Snoog wrote:Sadly, I think this is one situation where it's nigh impossible to fashion a non-circular argument. So you're probably right. And if a Christian whom has given this more thought would like to counter this, please do. I will admit that I'm far from an expert on the doctrine of salvation.

I'm not sure I see the circularity within the Christian idea of salvation. Perhaps the circularity you see in the salvation as discussed here is being applied as an argument for God and Christianity?? But, this is not the case, as all that was written was a responding to the question of "why" or "how" God's sacrifice would absolve our sins.

Anyway, I do agree with you that certain notions need to be accepted before soteriology (doctrine of salvation as affect by Christ—yes, there's a whole field for this!), can be explored. If these notions aren't accepted, then any discussion has to remain moot until they are. I think this is the main point you were trying to get at, and I'd agree.

Kurieuo.

I really don't see where the problem is with the "idea" of Christ dying for our sins. I see no logical rules being broken and it is thoroughly consistent. The only thing I can see is that some just don't "feel" that it is right, just as I "feel" it is right. While I have faith that I can accept Christ's attonement for my sin, and such a concept is indeed recorded in Scripture—I think your syllogistic argument above downplays too much the theology and reasons behind attonement. This is not a unique concept to Christianity... and the only reason I can see for someone rejecting it is perhaps because, "Christ dying for my sins does not seem right. It does not seem right, therefore Christ did not die for my sins." This is the strongest case I see can be made against this doctrine. And so any explanation that is given, isn't necessarily an argument, but rather an explanation towards helping this idea to have more sense to someone it doesn't.

I'm 99.9% certain we are agreeing, but wording our explanations differently.

And I'd also like to clarify that it's not necessarily a problem: I don't see any logical rules being broken either. And I do understand that much of faith revolves around personal experience and emtion: hence the syllogism is far from the whole story.

But I don't think the post here was an effort to discuss how one 'feels' about the doctrine of salvation, merely how it works. This is where I think BER was somewhat missing the point early on in this thread.

The circularity of said argument comes into play when one tries to turn an explanation of salvation into an argument against (or theoretically for) the existence of God.

Kurieuo: I sincerely hope we one day find ourselves on vastly different sides of an argument. I could use a good opponent

I read much of this post and please correct me if I am wrong in some assumtions. I gather the original author was asking of how Christ death absolves a believers sin. I also understand you(author) want an explanation without Bible verse to support it. I kind of get the idea the anwwer would be some what like trying to describe the recipe for a cherry pie without using any of the words that define the ingredients. But I have to try.
A creator of a creature makes that creature for his pleasure. The creators pleasure is in the perfect condition of the creature. Now in the making of the creature it is to morph from one creature to another (ie a butterfly). We can accept the change as part of the perfect design of the creator. The previous creature must pass away so the new creature can be. All fine and good. Now take to consideration that certain events must take place for the creature to change into the new creature it was meant to become, one thing may be spinning a cocoon. If the cocoon is not made it will not become a butterfly and will simply stop being anything because the elements wind rain cold will kill it. But if the cocoon is spun than in due time it becomes what it was meant to be, a butterfly.
Now the idea of the creation of man sin and Christ. Man was created to please God. His pleasure is in our union with him. We are humans now but in do time we will die. Why will we die because we go against the design we were made to be and the elements of sin kill us. So after being human we die and stop being. Now the creator of the human knew this would be and made a cocoon of Christ. In Christ death and resurection we are shown if we trust God and follow his design we will be transformed to what he always ment for us to be. The death and resurection of Christ shows what the perfect human becomes. If we dont accept the cocoon of Christ when our human body dies, there is no caccoon, and no flight to a union with our creator. It may be hard to believe that a Christ can be or make the cocoon for all the catapillars but that is the case of a Christ. If we are tobecome what we are designed to be we must have a cocoon and we simply can not spin a cocoon but the creator of us knows how to spin the cocoon and we trust him to do so. Why than does a cocoon even need be? It is simply the design of the creator and in a human mind we can not understand everything about how everything is designed. At some point we either admit we dont know and give up hope or we admit we dont know and trust the creator of us to tell us.
I hope this sheds some light on the idea of one dieing so others may live. Death is seperation from the creator, sin is the elements that seperate us from the creator, Christ is the cocoon that changes a dieing catapillar (us) into a perfectly designed butterfly able to be with the creator.
Please let me know if I have addressed your actual question with a answer that you understand and what that brings to your mind.

BER,

If you are asking why God decided that blood, per se, should be used as a means of forgiving sin, I do not know. All I know is that the Bible says that this is the system God set up. I suppose it is a visible means of showing the seriousness of sin, and of reminding us that sin = death and separation from God.

If you are asking why Jesus' blood, specifically, was necessary, this is the way I look at it:

God wants us to be in His presence. Unfortunately, due to God's perfect nature, the "blot" of sin in unacceptable to Him, and cannot be allowed in His presence. This blot, when washed or covered with blood, is now acceptable.

So, if you sin, you cannot go into God's presence unless you cover your sin with blood. The blood must be clean (that is, the blood cannot be from any sinful being, as it would then be blotted, itself.) Thus, it cannot come from any man (all men sin). It cannot come from God, because He is spirit, and does not die or bleed. So, we're left with animal sacrifice. Animals don't sin. Their blood is acceptable. However, because animals are a lesser creation than man, the cancellation of the debt is only temporary. Animal sacrifice must be repeated.

Jesus is fully man. He is the only man who did not sin. His innocent blood is acceptable. Jesus is fully God. Unlike limited animal sacrifice, His death pays the price eternally, for ALL men. Or, specifically, for all who accept the sacrifice. (Note that Jesus being God means that God did not send someone else to die. He used His own blood to cover our sins, so that we would be acceptable in His sight. This is why His sacrifice shows His love for us.)

The biggest problem i see with christians, is that they are very selective of what they want to hear or what they want to know. If something is proposed to them, that they can not understand, they fall back on the "I Believe" Or "It's faith" card.

Many people for whatever reason, also do not reference the old testament enough either.... imo. If you look at 1 simple scripture in the old testament, found in isaiah....

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior. (Found in Isaiah 43:11)

Now, read it again. That message is from our All mighty God. He clearly.... states that there is NO savior except him. No one can forgive your sins.. not jesus, not the angels, not the apostles, not your local priest... no one, except God. So, if Jesus really could be our savior, that in essence, that would mean that God is lieing.... which... .. is impossible for God to lie.
Instead, i believe something may have been mistranslated or a lie inserted into the bible. Can't be that hard to imagine, considering, that jesus and his apostles communicated in aramaic.... and none of there gospels were even recorded to well after 50+ years of jesus dieing... which means that alot could have been jumbled up, being passed around orally. Do not also forget that at the council of nicene, the church ordered all the hebrew gospels destroyed.... so it isn't that hard to imagine that a few miss ups or lies may have made it into the new testament. The old testament however was preserved by the jews... and hidden.

So, you can try to refute it, rebuke it, but God said it himself, that he is the one and only savior.

Furthermore, as far as believeing Jesus died your sins is the only way to make into paradise, This is from the book of Luke:

This is taken from Luke 10, 25-28

25. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?

26. "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

28. You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will
live."

Hmm... no where does it mention, that when he is crucified you need to acknowledge he died for your sins?

Let's look at another conversation between Jesus...

Luke 18:

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19. "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
20. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.' "
21. "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.
22. When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
23. When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.
24. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!
25. Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
26. Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"
27. Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
28. Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29. "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God
30. will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Again, a 2nd time, it refutes anything about having to acknowledge Jesus died for your sins.

Some people do not see the harm in praying to Jesus.. and praising/worshiping him... This is the harm...We have to remember, that Gods laws issued in the Old testament are still in effect today.. and no one has the authority to change them but the All mighty God. He said many times over that we shall not praise, pray to, nor worship ANYONE or ANYTHING other then him. If you do, it will be a form of idolatry. Now think about that. Think how many people think it's ok to pray to Jesus and worship him... when God said, clearly that you can do no such thing without being a sin?

Of course, I am talking to myself, because most people will still refute this, even though this all comes from the bible.. and from The Highest Authority known to us... God.

soulsolstice wrote:So, if Jesus really could be our savior, that in essence, that would mean that God is lieing.... which... .. is impossible for God to lie.

Unless of course, Jesus is God as Christians believe. If one takes the Arian view, where Christ is only a creature, which is what you appear to be taking... then you are right—Christ cannot be our saviour. I agree your logic holds, but Christians proclaim Christ is God.

Kurieuo.

As for the passage you cite, the verse you cite is double edged and is commonly used in support of Christ's divinity. Note that Jesus didn't actually deny being called good! Infact Jesus refers to himself in other passages as good, for example, "the good shepherd" (John 10:11). It seems that Jesus was here asking the man to examine the implications of what he was saying. As Ron Rhodes quoting scholar John Grassmick writes, "Jesus' response did not deny His own deity but was a veiled claim to it." (emphasis mine)

On another related angle, allow me to cite the full "good shepherd" passage:
<blockquote>1 "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
7 Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10:1-18)</blockquote>
Christ in the above claims to be able to save us, and that He intimately knows the Father. It follows then, that Christ must be God, something John makes clear in John 1.

Kurieuo.

I sometimes feel that we as humans tend to make things very complex, confusing ourselves...

They way I see it is that we are all sinners, we had nothing to do with it other than been born... the same we are all offer salvation, not because of what we did or van do, but because of Christ. So salvation is a Gift to all people... Each have the choice to take it, or ignore or - but to do so you have to realise that you are a sinner and need to be saved...

Read Romans Chapter 3 to 5 - it is explained very clearly ...

Blessings T

We are called to spread the "good news" !!! That is the only way that the people around us will ever realise that they are sinners and need to be saved... Francis of Asissi said " preach the Gospel where ever you go and only if needed use a few words"

As Paul put it "living epistles"!

The world need to see Jesus in us... then they will be convicted through us, by the Holy Spirit.

T

soulsolstice wrote:The biggest problem i see with christians, is that they are very selective of what they want to hear or what they want to know. If something is proposed to them, that they can not understand, they fall back on the "I Believe" Or "It's faith" card.

The argument cuts both ways. I could easily say the same about you.

So, if Jesus really could be our savior, that in essence, that would mean that God is lieing.... which... .. is impossible for God to lie.

Your conclusion only follows if the premise "Jesus != God" is allowed. You cannot argue in circles.

This is taken from Luke 10, 25-28

25. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?

26. "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27. He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "

28. You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will
live."

Hmm... no where does it mention, that when he is crucified you need to acknowledge he died for your sins?

On the other hand, nowhere does Jesus take back his other claims ("I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light," "Nobody knows the father except through me" etc...) or say "And make sure not to worship me!"

Of course, I am talking to myself, because most people will still refute this, even though this all comes from the bible.. and from The Highest Authority known to us... God.

No doubt. However, it remains to be seen as to whether the cited material was used correctly, put into the proper context, etc.


Of course, if we accept that the Bible is a good source, as Solstice agrees with, then let's take a look at the Resurrection. I believe that is the "Big Honkin' Banner" that tells us if Jesus was God or not.