So it's all pure theoretical, then Well not because that, but because these kind of discussion ends everytime same way. Non-believer will say: Do you have proof? I need it. Believer says: There is no proof, you have to feel it. And because subjective feelings are not verifiable, this is final dead end. From then it's only "mlácení prázdné slámy" ( beat the air, to flog a dead horse)
It's not really a factor or being uncomfortable with your imperfections. I think many Christians can be more comfortable with them because we know what happens in the end. It's not that we are not comfortable with imperfections. It's that we acknowledge them and allow Christ to cover them with his sacrifice on the cross. In my opinion, Czechs acknowledge them as well, but they are just too stubborn to surrender them to Christ. :wink: :lol: They'd rather hold onto them. (please note, I use the word "Czech's" because Eva used it. I know not all Czechs are atheist or stubborn, well maybe they're all stubborn. :wink: ) My husband said that after he came to believe in God it still took him a long time to allow God to be Lord of his life. He said to himself, "I didn't defect communism to just surrender to someone else, whether it my Creator or not." However, after he did, he was very impressed with what Christ had to offer. I'm really glad he did, because after all, we met in church. :wink:
If one thinks of God as the embodiment of justice and Jesus as the embodiment of mercy, perhaps this becomes clearer. Justice requires that when a law is broken, there is a consequence. Mercy is the forgiveness of the law-breaking act, without the full payment of the consequence. In the case of Jesus, the consequence is put upon another volunteering to atone for the other's wrongdoing. An example: a man borrows money from another, but when the loan comes due, he does not have the money to pay. The law, justice, requires that he repay the loan in full, and if he is unable, he forfeits all his property to the lender, and perhaps is subject to other consequences (e.g. jail, indentured servitude to the lender, etc.). However, say the debtor asks a friend/brother/acquaintance if he is willing to pay the debt for the debtor. If so, the debt is satisfied. The law and justice are satisfied. Yet mercy is shown to the debtor. In return, the debtor tries to show mercy toward others. Now of course, I have given an example of human law, whereas Christianity involves more of a spiritual/moral code of conduct. Yet the principle is the same. Another important distinction is that one can't completely avoid all the consequences of his/her actions, specifically in the here and now, yet has the faith that any consequences extending beyond this mortal life are satisfied in Christ. In short, there is no self-torture for one's imperfections [Perhaps you are referring to certain aesthetics, who berate or even physically harm themselves in the name of penance. This is NOT a principle taught by Christianity, in spite of the fact that such may call themselves Christians. ]. Rather, this is the opposite of self-torture, by calling on someone else (Jesus) to remove this consequence/guilt from oneself. In this sense, therefore, I'd say that Christians may be as comfortable with their imperfections as atheists, with the faith that any consequences reaching beyond this mortal life are atoned for by Christ upon a simple repentance process. This is the understanding of most Christians, and it inherently involves the belief in a hereafter, and assumes that one takes such a perspective on this life. If no such hereafter exists, what is the point of Christianity?
I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but still if you change the analogy to involve the laws of physics rather than a pen, then one expects the universe to follow the same laws every time. Of course, I mean the "real" laws of physics, rather than humankind's imperfect understanding of nature. I would add to this that the believer also realizes that there are many truths we hold in this world which are unprovable beyond doubt, and that a reliance on faith in many instances is both a given and necessary.
My point is that many things taken for fact are based on subjective opinions or recollections, which may be inherently biased based on the viewpoint of the the person. History is such a subject--everyone has their own opinion/slant on it. Yet there is one and only one "truth" as to what really occurred and why, but this is often shrouded in bias and missing pieces of history. Hence a person is left to either believe a historical account or not, but proof is often unattainable.
Sova, you wrote so eloquently all that I wanted to say. Thank you. There is a very small chance that I could be wrong, but I would say 99.9% of believers know that it takes a measure of faith to believe that Christ is the messiah. The Bible even states that it takes faith to believe and that God created all people with a measure of faith. I'm pretty sure ALL sane believers understand that Christianity can not be proven with today's evidence. The Bible states that even when Christ splits open the skies and burst open the graves to rapture the church, people are going to believe a lie. They will probably say, "prove it was Christ, I think it was aliens" or something like that. Now you're probably thinking the same thing my brother-in-law would say, "Sane Christians - that's an oxymoron" :wink: :lol:
By the way Eso, thanks for saving the world. Did you look as good as Kiefer Sutherland while doing so? :wink:
Yes I know. And muslims, hinduists, sikhs etc - they believe in their gods same way No way! I think that many Christians are more sane then, for example, people who believe in astrology
I'm afraid no No 24 hour day adventure, either I'm saving it secretly - kind like Superman, you know, and normally I look like Clark Kent. And really few people thank me - so, you are welcome
I thought for sure you'd say "better". It's not like we have evidence here on this site. Don't sweat it though. Clark Kent is kinda cute in his intelligent sorta way. :wink: It's all a matter of preference. Brains or Braun -- it's just that Jack Bower has both!
For me, it’s a vague phrase. And because I’m lazy to meditate in vague terms, I simply accept it as a literal figure. As I understand the line of reasoning used by believers, such people are evil, but they’re not sinning. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” / „Blahoslavení chudí duchem, neboť jejich jest království nebeské.“ What does “to be perfect” mean? Sorry, but this is an argumentation in a circle. First, you need to beliefe you’re enjoying a God’s power - i.e. to believe in God. Not always, sometimes somebody stops it with request for the exact definition of God and the discussion get stuck in a different way. But the result is similar. We don’t call it “stubbornness” but “consistency”. Do you think “to follow the same deterministic laws with identical outcomes” or “to follow stochastically formulated laws with different possible outcomes”? (Do you think that God does not play dice with the universe?) What is the faith? An (intuitive) estimation of odds? From my point of view, a believer is a person who accept God’s existence without any reason to do it. A person who takes God (and a lot of other assumptions usefull only to sustain the consistency of God’s existence) into a consideration without any benefit of it. I can simply put the question of God’s existence aside until I need it inescapably (and I’m sceptical such situation can occur).
Well I'm younger than Angelina Joli, but that did get me Brad Pitt. :wink: Just kidding. I'm sure your a very hansome young man with the women fighting over you. It's just that you don't have time for any of them with saving the world and all. :wink:
Wer wrote that "A believer is a person who accept(s) God's existence without any reason." Actually, that is not true. While trusting Jesus and turning one's life over to Him is ultimately an act of faith, it is not without reason. For thousands of years before Jesus was born, prophecies about the promised Messiah were given, as chronicled in the Old Testament, over a hundred of them. Now you say, "But believing that requires faith." But it doesn't. The writers very often didn't know that they were writing about the Messiah. Yet they continued to write. And that we have what they wrote exactly as they wrote it is assured because of good scholarshipand careful handling of the scrolls. The scribes had to follow a strict process when writing new copies, and if they made even one minor mistake, they had to destroy the copy and start again. And they were supervised while doing this. The Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940's proved this reliability. So what does that have to do with faith that Jesus is the Messiah? He, against all mathematical probabilities, fulfilled all of those prophesies. A mathematician worked out the probability and illustrated it this way: For one person to fulfill all of those prophesies was as likely as this analogy: If someone covered the state of Texas (our second biggest state) with gold coins, up to kneeheight of an average man, and one of these coins had a red X paintied on it. It would be as likely as if a person walks into the state of Texas, walks around, and randomly picks up that painted coin for one man to fulfill all of those prophecies. Another reason it is reasonable to believe is that there are many historical documents and archealogical finds that confirm what the Bible says about historical events, including mass sightings of the resurrected Jesus. I mean, how can thousands of people have the same hallucination, in different places? And why would Roman records mention it if it didn't happen? Finally, there actually is scientific information in the Bible that the writers of the Bible could not have known about on their own. In Genesis itself, the Big Bang is described. And, as I have stated before, the order of creation matches the development of life on earth that biologists say occured, with out the passage being literal. The Psalms gives information about the stars. It does all boil down to faith, but it is a reasoned faith, not an ignorant faith. I challenge you to read CS. Lewis's Surprised By Joy or the American book, Evidence that Demands a verdict, written by athen young scholar who set out to disprove Christianity, and ended up becoming a believer. CS Lewis said that He came kicking and screaming into the faith. He was a man of letters, an Oxford Don, who had no shortage of education and intelligence. He didn't think it was with out reason. Maybe with more careful examination, you won't either.
Eso said that muslims and hindus and sihks believe in their god's in the same way. The big difference is that their god's didn't rise from the dead. Also their god's are angry. The Christian God is Love and Justice and Mercy. Only the God of Love, the Christian God seeks to be in relationship with His creations, mankind. Would you rather believe and live in Love, or would you prefer a harsh and punishing god?
I did not wrote a believer has no reason, I wrote from my point of view he has no reason. That’s because his reasons are not reasons for me. I’m educated to think in a different way. For me, this says nothing about God’s existence. I understand somebody could be fascinated by the fact that an event with small probability occured, but I’m not (When I was a boy I was fascinated in this way by von Däniken’s books - I’m not anymore). Even an occurence of zero-probability event can not persuade me. The first moral in lessons of applied statistics is “Search and you will find”. And this is my answer to your “against all mathematical probabilities”. The Czech bookwriter Jaroslav Hašek wrote in one of his stories about a man who was run over by a train in Dresden. The physicians repaired his body using the most ticklish parts of his body, pig skin, a kidney donated by his relative etc. That all before the WWI - it means he against all odds predicted the trends of modern medicine. Does it means he is a prophet of modern medicine? No, he was nothing but a humorist. The Middle Ages chronicles confirm a lot of historic events too, however they also testified the existence of dragons, sorceress, goblins etc. Again, search and you will find - the wish the father of the idea. Reasoned from believer’s perspective. I read it. “Evidence that Demands a verdict”, that sounds pre-intended. You need the evidence for the verdict, not vice versa. That’s an ad hominem argument (unusualy not defamatory, but glorifying, but it does not matter) - that cuts no ice with me. See the first lines of my post. Would you rather live in a world without wars? I would, but it does not mean there’re no wars in our world.
Eso & Wer, When I read your comments I think a couple of things. One is that I am glad that you have the boldness to speak so firmly of your beliefs. The other is that we are all very stubborn (or should I say "consistant") in our beliefs. It makes me very happy that we have the freedom and opportunities to discuss this. Knowing how stubborn I am, it also makes me very happy that I was reared in a Christian family and exposed to the love the Christ at a very young age. If I had been reared in the same atheistic atmosphere, perhaps I also would have refused to open myself to the belief in Christ and I would have missed out an a lifetime of God's blessings and future eternity with Him. Thank you for your openess and willingness to participate in this sort of discussion. Many of the Czech I know don't want to discuss it. As a lady, I don't push any discussions on them. I just kindly ask them to not curse my God's name (G** D*mn'it) in front of me. Like the gentlemen most Czech are reared to be, they respectfully honor my request.
Well, this is interesting, because you understand it from your point of view. You live in country, where 90 percent are believers, so you think it's bold speak. But for us it's "normal thinking" for majority of society. I heard that no so long ago was atheistic thinking in USA considered as strange, non-American. I understand why some Czech people don't want to discuss it. After a few tens missionary talks (internet or real world) it starts to be little annoying. Now i don't talk about you, dzurislovak, but, for example, saillaels posts probably would common (non Christian) Czech make angry - and I know, saillaels, that you have good intention and no offence, please! But quotes from Bible have no weight for us. Rational, pragmatic realistic Czechs don't take seriously stories about miracles or texts from 2000+ years old book. You probably have to try other approach (but I don't know which) That's it - Czechs just don't believe in religion And they are now little tired from foreign missionaries, who yell in streets. But I'm matador of internet discussion, therefore I'm not annoyed, so don't worry, you can write anything and i will be ok This approach to religion is now widespreading through Europe (with some exceptions like Poland or Bavaria). It seems to be trend.
