Causality

[oxmixmudd]

The virgin birth story has all the hallmarks of mythology. It only occurs in two books, namely Mathew and Luke, both written long after the supposed event in the 80s or 90s according to the vast majority of researchers. That's a lot of time for colourful embellishments to develop regarding a revered holy man.

That criteria could be used to dismiss nearly all the claims of divinity associated with Christ. If one accepts the Resurection, the miracles of christ, there is no reason to reject the Virgin birth.

Further, the point I was responding to was claiming that the Virgin birth presented some basic conflict with the Christian conception of God and sexual morality, which it does not.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

except it doesn't. it is just "something unexplainable happened somehow and made our universe"

It shows that there is nothing self-refuting or logically contradictory about an infinite, non-sentient source being the origin of this universe. As long as that is possible, "god did it" is not the only possibility.

[carpedm9587]

A lot :)

Though I am not sure how in the world you could not follow the 'begotten' part. God made the baby in Mary's womb. You think the God that made the universe and everything in it can't make an egg fertile in a womb without creating a male body and having sex with her?

Umm..no...I frankly had simply forgotten the whole "virgin birth" theme. It HAS been a long time...

As for the "a lot," what part of what I said was untrue? also, I certainly did not capture all of Christian theology in one brief paragraph, but if there is something essential missing, what is it?

[oxmixmudd]

Umm..no...I frankly had simply forgotten the whole "virgin birth" theme. It HAS been a long time...

As for the "a lot," what part of what I said was untrue? also, I certainly did not capture all of Christian theology in one brief paragraph, but if there is something essential missing, what is it?

First and foremost, what you wrote was a derogatory characterization of fundamental Christian doctrine. As such is was purposefully disrepectful to all who believe it and hold it dear. Such an approach doesn't warrent serious response.

Second, it misses the most fundamental aspect of the faith, which is the personal recognition of the severity of one's own sin. Without that key component, God's sacrifice on the Cross appears horribly misguided I suppose. And without that key element of personal humility and reflection, little of the Christian faith can make any sense at all.

Jim

[Sparko]

It shows that there is nothing self-refuting or logically contradictory about an infinite, non-sentient source being the origin of this universe. As long as that is possible, "god did it" is not the only possibility.

actually there is a lot wrong with it. Seer pointed out some of what is wrong with it and your response is "we can't know what is going on outside of our universe or if causality even holds" (paraphrased) - so your thought experiment is no better than claiming the universe could have happened magically because an eternal unicorn exists who farts universes.

[carpedm9587]

First and foremost, what you wrote was a derogatory characterization of fundamental Christian doctrine. As such is was purposefully disrepectful to all who believe it and hold it dear. Such an approach doesn't warrent serious response.

No - that I reject completely. That someone may be offended by it does not mean it was intended to be a derogatory statement. Indeed, it is almost word-for-word something my Christian wife said to me the day I posted it.

Second, it misses the most fundamental aspect of the faith, which is the personal recognition of the severity of one's own sin. Without that key component, God's sacrifice on the Cross appears horribly misguided I suppose. And without that key element of personal humility and reflection, little of the Christian faith can make any sense at all.

Jim

Jim, let's look at the exchange. My first post was a list in response to the claim that god is "simple." One item on that list was "a god that apparently needs to sacrifice its own son/self to itself to redeem people, and that has to be by one of the more barbaric means of execution humanity has derived."

You challenged that as a "statement does not show a very well thought out summary" of Christianity.

My response was, "man sinned - and needed to be redeemed. God sent his only begotten son (not sure how that is possible for a god, since it refers to the creation of a child by sexual reproduction) to give his life for the world. He is called the paschal lamb, the sacrificial offering, and is essentially a form of scapegoat for the sins of man. Once the deed was done, people need only accept him to be redeemed."

I suppose the "only" could be interpreted as "it's trivial," but the intent of the word was to emphasize that this is the only thing that is required of Christian faith: honest acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. Beyond that possible misinterpretation of "only," I don't see how this response is very different from your response above, except you emphasized the "severity of sin."

Christian theology is filled with concepts widely held by religions throughout the ages: the scapegoat theme, virgin births, god merging with humanity. These are not unique to Christianity. And they certainly don't fit with the claim that was being made about the "simplicity" of god in the context of a discussion about first causes.

[Sparko]

No - that I reject completely. That someone may be offended by it does not mean it was intended to be a derogatory statement. Indeed, it is almost word-for-word something my Christian wife said to me the day I posted it.

Here is where you will probably accuse Ox of "doing a sparko" but it is clear to anyone reading your initial post that it was a dismissive comment and meant as a ridicule of how silly Christianity is to make up a god who killed himself to save us from his own wrath.
But when called on it, you want to pretend that you were not being derogatory at all because you don't want to "offend"

This is what I was on about with you before: Your passive-aggressiveness. It's not me "mind-reading" it is everyone ACTUALLY reading what you say, but then withdraw when called on it.

[carpedm9587]

Here is where you will probably accuse Ox of "doing a sparko" but it is clear to anyone reading your initial post that it was a dismissive comment and meant as a ridicule of how silly Christianity is to make up a god who killed himself to save us from his own wrath.

I promised not to use that expression, so I won't. But yes, you are attempting to mindread again. I don't know what Jim will do since I have not seen his response to my post.

But when called on it, you want to pretend that you were not being derogatory at all because you don't want to "offend"

And here too. You have no idea that I am "pretending," and I don't "pretend" in my posts. You'll have to decide for yourself if you're going to accept that statement as true, or (again) elect yourself the authority on Michel's intentions.

This is what I was on about with you before: Your passive-aggressiveness. It's not me "mind-reading" it is everyone ACTUALLY reading what you say, but then withdraw when called on it.

Your opinion is duly noted, Sparko. My list was in response to the question of "simple." There was no intent to disparage or offend.

[JimL]

Here is where you will probably accuse Ox of "doing a sparko" but it is clear to anyone reading your initial post that it was a dismissive comment and meant as a ridicule of how silly Christianity is to make up a god who killed himself to save us from his own wrath.
But when called on it, you want to pretend that you were not being derogatory at all because you don't want to "offend"

This is what I was on about with you before: Your passive-aggressiveness. It's not me "mind-reading" it is everyone ACTUALLY reading what you say, but then withdraw when called on it.

First off Sparko, you need to stop speaking as if you are talking for everyone. Carpe is not a christian, so the idea he put forth was not from a theistic perspective, but neither was it ridiculing christianity. People having opposing ideas or beliefs, though we sometimes do, are not necessarily ridiculing your beliefs. You're far to defensive.

[Sparko]

First off Sparko, you need to stop speaking as if you are talking for everyone. Carpe is not a christian, so the idea he put forth was not from a theistic perspective, but neither was it ridiculing christianity. People having opposing ideas or beliefs, though we sometimes do, are not necessarily ridiculing your beliefs. You're far to defensive.

says Tweb's #1 Troll who I have been arguing with previously about you doing the exact same thing along with Tassman.

When you guys misrepresent Christianity and our beliefs in order to belittle them or just to claim "gotcha" - all you are doing is making yourselves look ignorant.

[JimL]

says Tweb's #1 Troll who I have been arguing with previously about you doing the exact same thing along with Tassman.

When you guys misrepresent Christianity and our beliefs in order to belittle them or just to claim "gotcha" - all you are doing is making yourselves look ignorant.

Carpe didn't misrepresent or belittle your belief in his OP, he just expressed an alternative idea that has nothing to do with your belief.

[Jedidiah]

Feel free to correct what you feel was in error, Jim. Having been Christian for many years, the statement pretty much captures the theology, IMO. Man sinned - and needed to be redeemed. God sent his only begotten son (not sure how that is possible for a god, since it refers to the creation of a child by sexual reproduction) to give his life for the world. He is called the paschal lamb, the sacrificial offering, and is essentially a form of scapegoat for the sins of man. Once the deed was done, people need only accept him to be redeemed.

What did I miss?

This is powerful evidence of the accuracy of oxi's suggestion that you do not show any understanding of real Christian theology.

[carpedm9587]

This is powerful evidence of the accuracy of oxi's suggestion that you do not show any understanding of real Christian theology.

Your opinion is duly noted. I certainly was not an evangelical Christian after my beliefs evolved. That stopped in my late teens. So I can see how many here would probably have rejected me as ever being Christian at all.

[Sparko]

Carpe didn't misrepresent or belittle your belief in his OP, he just expressed an alternative idea that has nothing to do with your belief.

I wasn't talking about the OP.

[grmorton]

So I had an idea....(fade in dream sequence)...

Lights come up on a vast, infinite expanse. It has always been exactly as it is...a tidal flow of (something) not unlike an ocean. It is not expanding. It is not contracting. It is not conscious. It simply is, and the energy in this expanse is in constant motion. It always has been. Every once in a while, the random flow of this (something) randomly spawns a singularity, which drops out of the expanse into its own dimension, explodes, and expands until it experiences heat death in that dimension. Other such explosions have occurred infinity backwards in time, and others will occur infinitely forward in time. Each singularity spawns its own, self-contained, "universe" that is no longer related to the expanse, and no longer associated with any other such singularity. Some of these singularities explode and expand in the blink of an eye. Others have properties that tear them apart internally and they never form cohesive structures. Others have properties that cause galaxies, stars, and planets to form. Some have life - some do not. Some have sentient beings - some do not.

...(fade out dream sequence)...

And tell me why such a scenario is not a perfectly reasonably possibility? It does not depend on an infiinite chain of causality, because the expanse is itself infinite and uncaused. It is also not conscious, and the generation of "universes" is a perfectly common event in the "something." That our particular universe is structured/ordered is perfectly reasonable in the context of "an infinity of universes."

Thoughts?

Everytime I come for a visit, I read posts and think, what a waste of time to every bother to respond. No one in 20 years has changed their mind from what goes on here. It is a bunch of self important people mostly spouting about things they have no knowledge of, but to show how stupid I am, here is my critique of your scenario. The bolded, "it has always been" is where you violate science by the bucket load. First, uncaused and infinite existence are traits of a deity; effectively you make the universe have those traits rather than having a God to have those traits. That is fine if you want to do it, but know that you really are creating a mindless god with your mumblings. Secondly your use of before and past is ridiculous in the scientific sense. Time was created along with space by the big bang. There was no 'before' or infinity past because time didn't exist prior to the BB unless you just make it up like a 3rd grader who says, this sounds good and smart. One can't use time as a marker prior to time's creation. Science knows that the Big bang created more than what we can see in our Hubble volume, but we don't have a clue how much was created.

Having set up your little idol of the expanse, I guess you would prefer worshipping it rather than a God, that is fine, that is your choice to do. It is mine to worship God and dispense with the 2nd grade science to avoid his existence.

Finally you don't have a shred of observational evidence for your expanse but you think it sounds so scientific. It doesn't. Science is about observation and data, not about incoherent philosophical mutterings.