RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

> >Truly,I felt the need to speak up to address that very mentality

> >being present on an intellectual forum such as this one-

> >specifically that Christianity requires faith free from reason and

> >anyone who subscribes to it must have checked their rational

thought

> >at the door.

>

> Certain tenets of Christianity definitely require faith without

> reason.

Checking rational thought at the door is a loaded way to put

> things, though. There's plenty of intelligence brought to bear on

> matters of faith (as I'm sure the Jesuits would agree) but I also

> think most scholarly religious people would agree that anything

that

> must be taken on faith cannot be justified or explained with

> reason. has said much the same thing in this very

discussion.

I think your definition of faith is incomplete. Nearly everything-

from scientific " facts " to just about anything else- must be taken

on some degree on faith. It is virtually impossible to be 100%

certain of anything -we take into account several factors when

determining if any given " fact " is true based on the best

information we have at the time. Faith is not necessarily taking an

irrational leap, rather it can certainly be accepting something even

when being unable to be 100% certain. Regarding Christian faith, In

The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel says it this way: " I see faith

as being a reasonable step in the same direction that the evidence

is pointing. In other words, faith goes beyond merely acknowledging

that the facts of science and history point toward God. It's

responding to those facts by investing trust in God- a step that's

fully warranted due to the supporting evidence. "

Now you'd have to examine this evidence for yourself- I'm neither a

theologian or an apologist (as evidenced by my lousy attempt in my

earlier post-see below:). But I will say again that what I have read

to that end leads me to the conclusion of a Christian God.

>

> > At the very least I hope to encourage respect for a

> >Christian's belief in Christ as a deity, recognized as a

reasonable

> >conclusion drawn from a large body of evidence, historical and

> >otherwise. Not to engage in apologetics 101, but just for example:

>

> I'm afraid I don't respect that belief in the sense that I think

you mean it.

>

Yes, that's a tall order as I re-read! In fact, a theist view would

have to come first, eh?

> >* First and foremost, logic dictates that everything created has a

> >cause.

>

> You're begging the question by using the word " created " .

Correction: everything that exists has a cause

> >Going back to the big bang, we must assume an antecedent

> >cause for the universe, one that had to be supernatural-

superceding

> >space and time- namely, God.

>

> No, there's no reason we " must " accept God. First, there could be

a

> non-God cause for the universe.

Such as?

Second, there could be no cause for

> the universe.

Under what logical framework? There is nothing that behaves this

way.

Third, if the universe requires a cause, God must

> require a cause too -- except for the usual tautological

insistence

> that God uniquely is eternal and uncreated.

Well, if the evidence points that direction, that is a reasonable

conclusion. Furthermore, there is abounding scientific evidence that

points to a Creator. I am quoting Meyer, an intelligent

design proponent that " maybe the world looks designed because it

really *is* designed. "

> > If one accepts this premise, it would

> >also stand to reason that our God had a purpose for his creation

and

> >a desire to reveal himself to his creation- namely and uniquely,

via

> >the Bible.

>

> Do you honestly not see how illogical this assumption is?

No.

Let's

> suppose the universe was created by a God, just for the sake of

> argument. Why assume God would have a human-like desire to reveal

> himself to his creation?

Because He did in the Bible. This of course begs the question of

biblical reliability which again can be researched in the apologetic

literature.

Why isn't the Deist God plausible, for

> example? And why assume humanity is sufficiently central to his

> creation that we'd be selected to receive his revelation, when in

> fact we occupy a minute fraction of the total time and space of

the universe?

The apologetic literature addresses all of these arguments and in my

opinion successfully refutes them. If one believes the Bible is

reliable, one trusts it is God's revelation to his creation.

> >No other religious work satisfies this.

>

> No other religion satisfies your Christian and anthropomorphic and

> self-fulfilling characterization of God?

I'm afraid I don't really know enough about other world religions to

really answer your question.

>

> > Going further,

> >one may also accept that God chose to interact with the world

> >through Jesus as documented in the Gospels.

>

> Why?

I'm sorry to be a broken record but based on evidence for a Creator

God and biblical reliability, this assumption would naturally follow.

>

> > Some have even said that

> >the Gospel story is so *unbelievable* that it could not have been

> >generated by man.

>

> Sorry, but people have come up with all sorts of " unbelievable "

stories.

Yes, but what in the world would be the motivation? Early Christians

had no earthly payoff for preaching the Gospel or living by the

teachings of Jesus. In fact, their life of service, death to self

and ultimate martyrdom for many of them was not and still isn't an

attractive choice to our human nature.

> > And that if man wanted to establish a new

> >religion, he would have come up with something much more

reasonable!

>

> More reasonable? Like other religions?

>

> >* Also, the reliable and consistent testimony of the disciples in

> >the New Testament as well as the disciples' martyrdom- it has

never

> >been documented that anyone has ever knowingly died for a lie.

>

> The further I get into your message, the less prospect I see for

> productive discussion. What on earth do you mean by saying " it

has

> never been documented that anyone has ever knowingly died for a

> lie " ? I mean, seriously, WTF are you talking about?

>

>

> -

I don't recall the source, but I think the gist of it was the fact

that the disciples of Christ were willingly persecuted and/or put to

death for proclaiming the Gospel supports the veracity of the Gospel

accounts because if they knew it was false they would have never put

themselves on the line like that. It is just one piece of logic-

based evidence for the Gospel story related to our knowledge of

normal human behavior.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses and this opportunity to

exchange ideas.

Sincerely,