Superping-Jesus

[nfg22]

I dont beleive so. I beleive those that lived to the law without out knowing it were granted salvation. God may judge the heart of everyone justly, He will never cause an injustice.

[Easy Mac]

so if this thread goes away for three days and then reappears at the top of the board, does it classify as a miracle and can we be cannonized by the catholic church? Saint FOFC has a nice ring to it.

[nfg22]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

so if this thread goes away for three days and then reappears at the top of the board, does it classify as a miracle and can we be cannonized by the catholic church? Saint FOFC has a nice ring to it.

Not that funny.

[druez]

Originally Posted by nfg22

While I respect your veiws because they do come from intellegence, you seem to mix up God needing to send His Son. He did not need, He did it because He wanted to and to show His love to you, so you could have an opportunity to be with Him someday.


God is infused with some human characteristics yes, but He is not modeled after us, yet we are modeled after Him as it says in the bible. Thus the animals do not convey the so called Humanly emotions that we do because they were not modeled after Him.

You say God is for the weak minded to lean on in times of trouble? Well yes that is true, I am weak and I lean on him in times of trouble, yet I also accredit that trouble to being my fault but when in times of prosper I also lean on Him yet I give him credit for those times.

I would argue the point that animals don't have human emotions or responses. Dogs are a prime example, they love no doubt about that. They hate, pretty true there. They nurture and protect. yep.... They get jealous and they get angry or mad.

How bout dolphins and whales? In fact I would argue that monkies have human emotions also....

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by druez

I would argue the point that animals don't have human emotions or responses. Dogs are a prime example, they love no doubt about that. They hate, pretty true there. They nurture and protect. yep.... They get jealous and they get angry or mad.

How bout dolphins and whales? In fact I would argue that monkies have human emotions also....

I have to agree with that, animals to me can convey pretty much all aspects on human emotion and feeling, cats especially (I'm a cat person) seem very human - prone to selfishness, love and compassion.

(examples)
My cat is generally very independant and arrogant in nature, however he is also very patient with our kids suffering various maulings of affection from them when they're very young.

I've also seen cats surpress their hunting instincts to protect animals who are part of the household (Abbey one of our previous cats used to protect our hamster when it escaped (which it did frequently) when every one of her instincts should have been telling her to kill it in the same manner she would a normal rodent.

The same cat also spent an evening chaperoning my wife as we paced up and down the street attempting to encourage labor for our second youngest son.
(end examples)

All of these you can probably rationalise down to pack instinct or selfishness (ie. it wouldn't hurt the hamster because it knew it'd get in trouble) on the behalf of the creature, but I would remind you that both of these are also present in mankind and show that the animal involved understands and responsds to complex circumstances understanding the consequences involved.

To indicate that animals don't have emotions is inaccurate in my experience, they have different levels and reactions for such things but defnitely have them.

This could be conjectured to be partially down to their intelligence level, but I would personally conjecture that people don't indicate that a mentally challenged human doesn't have emotions even if severely handicapped ... so why discount an animal from having them just because they can't communicate them verbally.

What all this means on a religious level I don't know, I'm far from an expert on such things and would be interested in hearing peoples opinions.

[QuikSand]

It's easy to see the devolution of this basic argument (where much of this thread has headed).

People of faith, who are predisposed to evidence of God, will find what they are looking for in any number of things. They see natural beauty, life itself, the order of the cosmos, and even the "fuzzy" feeling they get when they worship --and they declare the majesty and mystery of these things themselves to be "proof."

People without faith are frequently predisposed to look for more empirical evidence - saying that the argument for God is founded on principles that are wholly unverifiable - things that are easily explained away as coincidence, deception, and randomness. Without any empirical proof, the non-believers are affirmed in their opinions that the whole thing is speculative at best, and a construction of man for earthly reasons (political or financial power, for instance) at worst.


The thing is that both sides of the argument get what they want from what they see and experience, and both sides of the argument can be assembled to be completely logically consistent. Believers can rely on the arguments we have seen here in this thread and the all-purpose "we cannot understand God" -- while nonbelievers can continue to doubt and to point out the potential human motivations behind all these stories.

That's why this debate has never calmed.

[Cuckoo]

I finally agree with you in this thread QS.

Although it is a little strange to hear my faith being described as my "fuzzy feeling."

[revrew]

In response to QS -
I agree. Which is why, I believe, a person without faith so rarely comes to faith through debate, or even discussion. The biblical example of people coming to faith was through the power of story and testimony, through seeing the power of God to transform lives. God saved the Israelites from Egypt, from Assyria, from Babylon, etc. Jesus saved people from illness, possession, and handicap, and then said, "I free them from sin and death, too." Paul was a life changed, as was Peter, and others, including Augustine, Wesley, Luther, me, etc. Converts, with some notable exceptions, are not usually won by argument, but by seeing the story of God transforming a life come alive. After all, Jesus did not say, "The world will know you are my disciples by your clear, persuasive argument." No, he said "by the love you have". That love, in turn, was not good deeds, but lives transformed from self-centered self-pleasing notions of affection and lust to the biblical concept of "agape" love --- ack, I'm getting too expositional/preachy...

The point is - I don't look for this thread to win any converts. I only hope it helps understanding and clear away a few of the sillier roadblocks to faith--such that when someone encounters an undeniable resurrection story, perhaps in a friend or family member's life, the power of one changed life can more easily change yet another.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's easy to see the devolution of this basic argument (where much of this thread has headed).

People of faith, who are predisposed to evidence of God, will find what they are looking for in any number of things. They see natural beauty, life itself, the order of the cosmos, and even the "fuzzy" feeling they get when they worship --and they declare the majesty and mystery of these things themselves to be "proof."

People without faith are frequently predisposed to look for more empirical evidence - saying that the argument for God is founded on principles that are wholly unverifiable - things that are easily explained away as coincidence, deception, and randomness. Without any empirical proof, the non-believers are affirmed in their opinions that the whole thing is speculative at best, and a construction of man for earthly reasons (political or financial power, for instance) at worst.


The thing is that both sides of the argument get what they want from what they see and experience, and both sides of the argument can be assembled to be completely logically consistent. Believers can rely on the arguments we have seen here in this thread and the all-purpose "we cannot understand God" -- while nonbelievers can continue to doubt and to point out the potential human motivations behind all these stories.

That's why this debate has never calmed.

Some of the best analytical and empirical minds throughout history have lived a life of faith through Jesus Christ. You can be both.

[druez]

Originally Posted by revrew

In response to QS -
I agree. Which is why, I believe, a person without faith so rarely comes to faith through debate, or even discussion. The biblical example of people coming to faith was through the power of story and testimony, through seeing the power of God to transform lives. God saved the Israelites from Egypt, from Assyria, from Babylon, etc. Jesus saved people from illness, possession, and handicap, and then said, "I free them from sin and death, too." Paul was a life changed, as was Peter, and others, including Augustine, Wesley, Luther, me, etc. Converts, with some notable exceptions, are not usually won by argument, but by seeing the story of God transforming a life come alive. After all, Jesus did not say, "The world will know you are my disciples by your clear, persuasive argument." No, he said "by the love you have". That love, in turn, was not good deeds, but lives transformed from self-centered self-pleasing notions of affection and lust to the biblical concept of "agape" love --- ack, I'm getting too expositional/preachy...

The point is - I don't look for this thread to win any converts. I only hope it helps understanding and clear away a few of the sillier roadblocks to faith--such that when someone encounters an undeniable resurrection story, perhaps in a friend or family member's life, the power of one changed life can more easily change yet another.

I noticed you pointed out all the nice things god did to show proof he exists. Lets not forget what he did to the Egyptians. Or how bout Sadam and Gamora. He definately did his fair share of smighting and flooding to prove his point also....

[druez]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's easy to see the devolution of this basic argument (where much of this thread has headed).

People of faith, who are predisposed to evidence of God, will find what they are looking for in any number of things. They see natural beauty, life itself, the order of the cosmos, and even the "fuzzy" feeling they get when they worship --and they declare the majesty and mystery of these things themselves to be "proof."

People without faith are frequently predisposed to look for more empirical evidence - saying that the argument for God is founded on principles that are wholly unverifiable - things that are easily explained away as coincidence, deception, and randomness. Without any empirical proof, the non-believers are affirmed in their opinions that the whole thing is speculative at best, and a construction of man for earthly reasons (political or financial power, for instance) at worst.


The thing is that both sides of the argument get what they want from what they see and experience, and both sides of the argument can be assembled to be completely logically consistent. Believers can rely on the arguments we have seen here in this thread and the all-purpose "we cannot understand God" -- while nonbelievers can continue to doubt and to point out the potential human motivations behind all these stories.

That's why this debate has never calmed.

While I agree with most of this point, I deviate from one core element. When you say those without faith, you mean those that don't believe in the bible or christiantiy? I believe I have some belief or faith, in a higher power. I just don't believe the bible describes this force, nor do I believe anything can adequetly describe it.

I do believe in Karma and have faith in certain beliefs I hold dear. So, just because one does not buy into christiantiy or the bible, doesn't mean one does not have faith.

[sabotai]

Quick biological note about emotions in animals...

the brain of a mammel, in general, is capable of experiencing at least basic emotions. Obviously this is very helpful to survival. If you experience fear, you fight harder for your survival or run like hell. If you experience happiness, you strive to do what makes you feel this way. If you experience hate, you avoid or destroy that thing, usually a threat to you in some way. Etc, etc.

This is one of the reasons. in my opinion, that mammels have become the dominate form of life in much of the world. For the most part, other forms of life do not experience emotions (reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish) because, generally, their brains are not wired that way.

The one thing that does seperate us though is our seemingly need to talk about and try to explain our emotions. We can thank the women for that one.

(I only bring this up since Marc and druez talked about it. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming)

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by druez

When you say those without faith, you mean those that don't believe in the bible or christiantiy?

Of course not. I'm talking about faith - believing in God (or some higher power) in the absence of demonstrative proof. I'm not talking about any particular brand of it, even though most of the discussion here has understandably centered on the Chritsian brand and biblical teachings.

Point is simple: By and large, believers believe, and already have all the proof they need. Nonbelievers will never find the proof they demand.

[nfg22]

I was once a non-believer though. I thought Christians were crazy and that as long as I was a good person I would make it into heaven. Now I know I was wrong then and I am a new person. I also belived many of the things that are common in the Non-believers(In Christ's Salvation) on this board but my veiws changed so it can happen.