- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I have a quiet envy of religious people
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:19 am to udtiger
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:19 am to udtiger
I battled cancer. They cut me right down the middle of my gut to remove the diseased organ. During my recovery I laid flat on my back unable to walk or move. Totally dependent on my saintly bride of 50 years.
As I lay there in the middle of the night totally unable to perform even the most basic of bodily functions and hygiene without help, this thought kept crowding all other thoughts out of my mind, "Say the prayer I taught you." Over and over, everynite the same thought. So I kept reciting this simple prayer over and over, "Jesus, I trust in you." The pain and discomfort was real, but I found the strength to endure it. I found the strength to unite my sufferings with the sufferings of Jesus on the Cross and offered for all the members of my family.
I am flawed, I wish I wasn't. But I know there is a God who loves me. So much so, He sent his Son Jesus Christ to remind us all how much He loves us. He will never abandon us.
My eternal home awaits me in heaven. Jesus I trust in you.
non sum dignus
As I lay there in the middle of the night totally unable to perform even the most basic of bodily functions and hygiene without help, this thought kept crowding all other thoughts out of my mind, "Say the prayer I taught you." Over and over, everynite the same thought. So I kept reciting this simple prayer over and over, "Jesus, I trust in you." The pain and discomfort was real, but I found the strength to endure it. I found the strength to unite my sufferings with the sufferings of Jesus on the Cross and offered for all the members of my family.
I am flawed, I wish I wasn't. But I know there is a God who loves me. So much so, He sent his Son Jesus Christ to remind us all how much He loves us. He will never abandon us.
My eternal home awaits me in heaven. Jesus I trust in you.
non sum dignus
This post was edited on 6/25/20 at 9:17 am
1
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:20 am to sweetwaterbilly
Isaac Newton was a Christian yet UDTIGER is too smart to have faith 
Oh the burden of multiple degrees
quote:
Carl Sagan: “An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.”
Oh the burden of multiple degrees
This post was edited on 6/25/20 at 8:22 am
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:20 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
For the word God to be meaningful as such, there has to be an antithesis. There has to be God and non-God. A creator of a system can't be part of the system.
That sounds like several human assumptions.
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:28 am to EKG
quote:
There has to be God and non-God.
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:38 am to udtiger
quote:
Too rational. Too questioning. Too doubtful.
The burden of multiple degrees and the life of an *intellectual."
But, congratulations to you.
You might investigate multiple SCOTUS justices, Adrian Vermeule, etc. Intellectualism and faith aren't the best bedfellows, but they're not mutually exclusive.
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:53 am to Gaston
I don't think interest in those things has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has to do with emotional factors.
But just to be clear, I'm not saying anybody should have an interest in these questions, or that people who do are somehow better than people who don't.
What I am saying is that there are a lot of people smugly implying that belief in a Supreme Being is simple-minded when it's actually atheism that lends itself to a very shallow assessment and falls apart when examined by academic logic, and all one has to do to have that proven to them is to actually follow where that leads logically.
It's like an Algebra formula that produces two answers, one workable and one that is self-evidently absurd. Remember those from junior high math? Eliminating the obviously absurd answer doesn't mean the other one is necessarily correct—a mistake could still have been made along the way—but there is one answer that can't be the correct one.
Anyone who is willing to approach the question like they would an Algebra problem will come to this conclusion. Whether they wish to do so or not is not what I'm talking about or objecting to.
There's no shame in not being interested in engineering. What I am objecting to is the person with no interest in engineering who smugly implies that Satya Nadella's theories are simpleminded because they build a rad Evil Kenevil bike ramp in their backyard when they were kids.
But just to be clear, I'm not saying anybody should have an interest in these questions, or that people who do are somehow better than people who don't.
What I am saying is that there are a lot of people smugly implying that belief in a Supreme Being is simple-minded when it's actually atheism that lends itself to a very shallow assessment and falls apart when examined by academic logic, and all one has to do to have that proven to them is to actually follow where that leads logically.
It's like an Algebra formula that produces two answers, one workable and one that is self-evidently absurd. Remember those from junior high math? Eliminating the obviously absurd answer doesn't mean the other one is necessarily correct—a mistake could still have been made along the way—but there is one answer that can't be the correct one.
Anyone who is willing to approach the question like they would an Algebra problem will come to this conclusion. Whether they wish to do so or not is not what I'm talking about or objecting to.
There's no shame in not being interested in engineering. What I am objecting to is the person with no interest in engineering who smugly implies that Satya Nadella's theories are simpleminded because they build a rad Evil Kenevil bike ramp in their backyard when they were kids.
This post was edited on 6/25/20 at 8:54 am
Posted on 6/25/20 at 8:55 am to EKG
quote:
That sounds like several human assumptions.
Those are logical mechanisms.
Of course, if there is no transcendent Supreme Being, then you're right, logic is just an illusion.
EDIT: It's quite true that logic is a system humans use. The question is whether we can trust it or not.
This post was edited on 6/25/20 at 9:03 am
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:05 am to FooManChoo
quote:
There is nothing “psychologically abusive” about the truth. The doctrine of hell is intrinsically tied to the doctrine of God’s justice. Punishment for what we deserve isn’t any more “psychology abusive” than telling someone they will get the death penalty for murder.
There’s no evidence whatsoever that such a place exists, or even that it could exist. In the absence of any actual evidence of truth it absolutely is a manipulative and psychologically abusive concept. Comparing to any punishment set forth in the realm of physical reality which can be readily observed and demonstrably proven is nothing more than theological hackery.
quote:
Your concern must rest more on what you think we deserve, but that is either an ignorance of God’s holy character and our sinful natures or a rejection of Biblical truth in unbelief.
Again, there’s just no evidence it exists. Even if we accepted the circular logic of the Bible serving as evidence of Hell, the modern Christian view of Hell is based almost entirely on two non-Biblical sources: The apocalypse of Peter and Dante’s “Divine Comedy”
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:07 am to Strannix
quote:
Isaac Newton was a Christian yet UDTIGER is too smart to have faith
Isaac Newton was also into alchemy and astrology
He was simply a man of his time
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:24 am to udtiger
quote:
The burden of multiple degrees and the life of an *intellectual."
You should read A Case For Christ.
Lee Strobel was an atheist journalist that set out to prove that Christ was fiction. He proved just the opposite. His research was thorough and used highly reputable resources. And remember, he went into it with the bias of proving it false.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:38 am to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 8:43 am
Posted on 6/28/20 at 8:45 am to BeNotDeceivedGal6_7
quote:
You should read A Case For Christ.
The book is simply the standard apologetics tropes streamlined into a NYT best selling format. There’s nothing in there that you won’t hear from William Lane Craig or Frank Turek or any of the others. “The disciples wouldn’t die for a lie!!!” and other such nonsense.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 9:02 am
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:09 am to EKG
quote:the autonomous nervous system, which has 100% to the way you were made, designed. You have no input at all here.
What initiates the electrical impulses?
as opposed to your choices, willed machinations, movement, most of your beliefs, YOUR treatment of YOUR intellect, YOUR treatment of others, YOUR accepted expectations of others, winks, nods, shoulder shrugs... [which are all brought to you by your potential with BOTH nervous systems]
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:11 am to wackatimesthree
quote:They went a bit beyond that in later math courses in ways that expose your "junior high" understanding and todays reference attempt... just saying
It's like an Algebra formula that produces two answers, one workable and one that is self-evidently absurd. Remember those from junior high math? Eliminating the obviously absurd answer doesn't mean the other one is necessarily correct—a mistake could still have been made along the way—but there is one answer that can't be the correct one.
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 9:20 am
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:18 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:The Bible is a testimony. You can choose to believe it or reject it but the testimony is evidence.
There’s no evidence whatsoever that such a place exists, or even that it could exist. In the absence of any actual evidence of truth it absolutely is a manipulative and psychologically abusive concept. Comparing to any punishment set forth in the realm of physical reality which can be readily observed and demonstrably proven is nothing more than theological hackery.
The comparison holds true even if you don’t like it. The point isn’t that you can observe one and not the other in this life (very few people can observe the death penalty in this country, BTW), but that you believe it happens. If hell exists as the Bible claims, then warning people about it is not abuse at all, and believing it exists and warning others out of sincere concern isn’t abuse, either, but compassion. Your argument rests on the assumption that it doesn’t exist and that warnings are made out of a desire to harm.
quote:The Bible is evidence it exists and circular logic isn’t always fallacious: when you have no higher authority to appeal to, you have to stop there, like having to assume that the laws of logic exist in order to use logic.
Again, there’s just no evidence it exists. Even if we accepted the circular logic of the Bible serving as evidence of Hell, the modern Christian view of Hell is based almost entirely on two non-Biblical sources: The apocalypse of Peter and Dante’s “Divine Comedy”
Even with that, the “modern Christian view of Hell” is irrelevant to whether or not hell exists or if it is psychologically abusive. Jesus talked more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible and we get our understanding from that. Whether Dante or anyone else drew from the Bible to invent their own picture which was then used in mediums for centuries to imprint that particular image in the minds of others is simply beside the point. People can imagine what they will, but what we know for certain about hell comes from the word of God.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:19 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:That isn’t nonsense.
The disciples wouldn’t die for a lie!!!” and other such nonsense.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:35 am to FooManChoo
quote:
That isn’t nonsense.
1: Any discussion regarding this requires I grant that the accounts in the Bible are reliable, something which I have no reason to do on the grounds that nobody can provide outside evidence for it.
2: People die for lies, literally, all the time
3: There is no actual evidence ANY of the disciples were martyrs for the faith, and the Bible only in passing mentions 2 giving no details. This belief is based entirely on the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church. Hell, we only have extra-Biblical evidence that 2 of the disciples even existed at all. Verifiable Christian history essentially begins with Paul around 20 years after the dated death of Jesus, and none of the canonized Gospels would exist for an additional 20 years.
The argument falls apart at every level
Posted on 6/28/20 at 9:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible is a testimony.
The Bible is a story. If you wish people to accept it as history, provide evidence for it. If the Bible is the only piece of evidence for something occurring, we have no reason to believe it until other evidence becomes available.
quote:
The Bible is evidence it exists and circular logic isn’t always fallacious: when you have no higher authority to appeal to, you have to stop there, like having to assume that the laws of logic exist in order to use logic.
Something only constitutes evidence in light of other evidence. In a vacuum, everything is circular. I can’t show anything to be true on the basis of a single source claim, as this requires I use the claim to prove itself.
The Bible is evidence for the existence of Jesus because other sources outside the Bible help validate that claim, and thus we know Jesus probably existed in some capacity. Those multiple sources combine with the Bible to constitute evidence, and the more sources the better.
Claims isolated ONLY to the Bible (such as, for instance, the dead emerging from their graves and wandering Jerusalem) have no reason to be believed because there is nothing outside the story to corroborate it.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 10:15 am to udtiger
quote:
Too rational. Too questioning. Too doubtful.
The burden of multiple degrees and the life of an *intellectual."
You're too proud. You're not envious, you're looking for someone to feel sorry for you.
Posted on 6/28/20 at 10:47 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Many of the people, places, and events of the Bible are supported by archeology and historical record. The consensus by those who actually live in that world is that the Biblical accounts without additional supporting evidence (at least the the ones not proclaiming supernatural events) are more likely to be true than false given it’s overall accuracy in reporting history.
1: Any discussion regarding this requires I grant that the accounts in the Bible are reliable, something which I have no reason to do on the grounds that nobody can provide outside evidence for it.
Ancient non-Christian historians like Josephus and Tacitus also mention Jesus’ execution. Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus. There are other ancient writings that attest to the historicity of Jesus and shouldn’t be ignored. There is ample evidence for the reliability of the Bible. You simply don’t want to accept it because it contradicts your worldview.
quote:How many people willingly allow themselves to be killed as a criminal for something that they know for a fact to be a lie? It is one thing to believe in a lie that you think is the truth, but to be executed for something you know is untrue?
2: People die for lies, literally, all the time
The Bible records Peter denying to know Jesus three times because he feared what might happen to him after Jesus was arrested. What changed between then and when he was martyred and why wouldn’t that preservative denial be the case for all the apostles and early Christians who died for claims about the risen Christ that could be easily refuted?
quote:Not true. The testimony of several apostles being martyred is found in several non-biblical writings such as writings from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Eusebius, and Tertullian.
3: There is no actual evidence ANY of the disciples were martyrs for the faith, and the Bible only in passing mentions 2 giving no details. This belief is based entirely on the sacred tradition of the Catholic Church.
The brief mentions of the martyrdoms in the Bible actually help the reliability as they were written as matter of fact without extra or embellished details that you would expect from someone trying to convince you rather than just relaying what happened.
quote:Also untrue. Writings of the early church fathers attest to the existence of the disciples/apostles.
Hell, we only have extra-Biblical evidence that 2 of the disciples even existed at all.
quote:Written testimony existing within 100 years of the events from 2,000 years ago is pretty good evidence to their authenticity. We don’t really question the writings of Plato even though the earliest extant manuscripts we have of his writings are from nearly a thousand years after he supposedly wrote them yet you think the evidence from the period where witnesses of the biblical accounts would still be alive isn’t good enough for you? Ok.
Verifiable Christian history essentially begins with Paul around 20 years after the dated death of Jesus, and none of the canonized Gospels would exist for an additional 20 years.
quote:I believe yours does, yes.
The argument falls apart at every level
This post was edited on 6/28/20 at 3:42 pm
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News