10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

Gern Blansten wrote:

dpmay wrote:

alright, i don't want to turn this thread into the footnotes for a theology paper, but i do want to share with you some of what i have read regarding this issue. namely, must one be explicitly christian to attain the salvation christians believe in?

- the current catechism of the catholic church (a sort of detailed description of all aspects of the catholic faith) says this: "the Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as 'a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at lenght have life.'" (the quote is from the lumen gentium, one of the documents to come from vatican II).

- in 1863, pope pius declared pesons invincibly ignorant of the christian religion who observed the natural law and were ready to obey god would be able to attain eternal life, thanks to the working of divine grace within them.

- in 1943, pius xii indicated in his mystici corporis, that there are actually two ways of belonging to the church: in actual fact (in re) or by desire (in voto). those belonging to the church in voto were ordered to the church by the dynamism of grace itself, which related them to the church in a way that they were in some sense in it.

- cardinal cushing of boston in a 1949 letter declared that one could belong to the church not only by actual membership, but also by an even unconcious desire.

- some texts conceived at vatican II in 1964 stated that god's universal salvic will means that he gives non-christians, including even athiests, sufficient help to be saved.

- in 2005, pope benedict said "Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith."

(most of these paraphrasing come from a really interesing paper from avery cardinal dulles called 'who can be saved?').

in any case, i am not here to defend any of these positions. i just offer them as evidence that, even within the christian community, not everyone believes that, to put it one way, true christianity is standing on a street corner telling everyone they're going to hell.

but should they?

if you grew up on a deserted island and a bible dropped from the clouds wouldn't you be a true fundamentalist?

The Catholics have made religion very convenient for themselves....I'm more likely to support the fundy's

dpmay wrote:

..... for me, belief in some kind of god is a lot easier to have than the specific kind of faith required for jesus.

Gern Blansten wrote:

My discoveries about Jesus were the nail in the coffin of my christian beliefs but to this day I leave open the possibility of "god" but with what science keeps uncovering I think that becomes less and less likely.

Maybe god is a human that created us in a petri dish on a piece of moldy cheese....but then who created the human?

Gern Blansten wrote:

dpmay wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

My discoveries about Jesus were the nail in the coffin of my christian beliefs but to this day I leave open the possibility of "god" but with what science keeps uncovering I think that becomes less and less likely.

Maybe god is a human that created us in a petri dish on a piece of moldy cheese....but then who created the human?

yeah man, that's what i meant: belief that god is possible is easier than belief that jesus was/is who christians say he was/is. and i say that as a christian myself.

and i read a little more about mithraism, and am (prehaps not surprisingly) unconvinced.

one thing i didn't really mention in my justification for my christian faith above is that, for me, there's also an emotional, visceral element that i really can't describe. maybe that validates all the negative suspicions you had about me...oh well.

so you discovered Mithraism....you understand the similarities between Mithra and Christ....and you realize that the Mithra stories originated a thousand years before Christ....and that doesn't make you wonder?

I wasn't thinking that you would start following Mithra....just that it might strike you that "hey...it sounds like this Jesus guy was just a continuation of the Mithra fable"

I mean come on....it's obvious

agauthiermdphd wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

CJMST3K wrote:

(GB - would you please transcribe the 10 questions from the video to make it easier for someone who is actually willing to answer to do so?)

Here you go...
1. Why won't god heal amputees? (1:22)
2. Why are there so many starving people in our world? (2:27)
6. Why do bad things happen to good people? (5:26)
8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? (5:43)
To believe in god you must make all sorts of strange rationalizations and excuses....to those that do not believe in god all the answers make complete sense.

I have quickly looked at the previous 13 pages of this post and would like to make the following comments:

1) I find it very interesting that human beings that have a brain weighing 1300-1400 grams think this gives them enough "power" to argue for or against the existence of God. I find arrogant anyone who believe that their small brain, which is entrapped in a minuscule human body in comparison to the immensity of the universe, has enough power to refute the existence of God. Humans will never be able to understand the "logic" of God because our brain does not have the power to do so. Humans will never be able to understand why disasters occur because their brain will never have the power to understand "the big picture". Do not ask me what the big picture is, as my brain is also too small. Possibly after we are freed from the physical limitations of living in human bodies will we be able to have a better understanding.

2) The fact that science has not proven the existence of God does not prove he does not exist. Bacteria and viruses existed before the microscope could prove their existence. Far away galaxies existed before telescopes were created. Ultraviolet and infrared red light exist even if our eyes cannot see them. Electricity and vibrations exist in water despite the fact that humans cannot sense them. Shanks have the physical bodies to feel these later physical entities. The fact that we do no see ghosts does not prove they do not exist. The might, we just do not know yet. If God exist, it is not in his plan for us to understand these things at this point in time.

The human understanding of the universe (and God) is purely limited by our senses and the tools humans have been able to create so far in time. As we create more tools to explore the universe, our understanding of it will increase, which might get us closer to understanding the reality of God. That being said it may take millions of years to get there. I believe this is why millions of intelligent scientists who pride themselves in using logic and science on a daily basis can still believe in God as they understand their humanly limited science is not almighty and only slowly developing. To say that God does not exist at this point in time is giving humans and science way too much credit, in my, oh so limited (by my small brain), opinion.

Peace.

Gern Blansten wrote:

But does it bother you that the story of Jesus appears to be adapted from other religions? Have you ever read about Mithra and Vishnu? The similarities are striking. And remember....they used to claim that Caesar was born of a virgin so that was a very prevalent thread at the time.

Crazy, Gern is some what capable of putting faith in what men from ancient history have written or passed down about a supposed God. Everything on the internet is truth!

My journey to non-belief was a chipping away process....chipping away at jesus was probably my last piece

One thing that amazed me was discovery the number of writers that existed at that time....they would keep diaries about their day to day lives...what they ate, what they did in their daily lives, etc....the question would be why weren't these people writing about this Jesus guy who was in the area performing all these miracles?

why did it take decades for the gospels to begin being written? why weren't they madly jotting down all these stories and spreading them around the region?

that was big for me