Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Apparently, everything is so clear that the popes of the last 150 years can't even agree about whether or not our pets will join us in heaven.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world ... open-.html

Another great reason to interpret Scripture with Scripture instead of relying on the frailties of fallen man to tell us what the Scriptures mean.    This is treatise is approaching 500 years old, but still is a good perspective of "the Pope" for those who wish some enlightenment.

http://bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

... Mountaineer

I guess it's not enough that the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., can't even agree on the 'true' God, but the Christians [just like the Muslims: Sunni/Shiite] gotta disagree among themselves. 

Regardless, as I said about 70 pages ago in this thread, if my dog isn't going to be in heaven when I get there, I wouldn't want to go anyway. Thankfully, I don't believe any of that stuff anyway, so the point is moot. 

MangoMan,

Maybe it is moot, but perhaps the possibility of being able to see your beloved animal again may give you incentive to "believe".  Here is an answer based on what Scripture says.  I may have addressed this already; I did not go back through this epistle and check.  Cheers, dude! 

... Mountaineer

Q: My four-year-old son wants to know if he will see his dog when he dies and goes to heaven. Will he? Do I tell him that even though God created all the animals too, people are the only ones that go to heaven?

A: In the "Q&A" column of the January 1995 issue of the Northwestern Lutheran (the official periodical of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod), Rev. John Brug gives the following helpful response to the question, "Will there be animals in heaven?"

Since animals do not have immortal souls, we might think the answer is no. Several facts, however, make one hesitant to be satisfied with a simple "no." Our eternal home is a new earth (Isaiah 65:17ff, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1). Isaiah 65:25 speaks of it as a place in which the wolf and the lamb live together peacefully.  This may be figurative language, but one other passage suggests animals might be in our eternal home. Romans 8:21 says that "the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage." In this present, sin-cursed world, we inflict suffering on animals, and they inflict suffering on us. At Christ's coming, when this world is freed from the effects of sin, animals, too, will be freed from suffering.

That text also says the creation will be "brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." That might mean there may be plants and animals in the new earth as there were in the first earth. If there are animals on the new earth, they will be good creatures of God as the animals of the first earth were.

In short, the answer is a cautious "maybe."

Following is a MUCH more detailed answer, if you wish to more thoroughly examine the Scriptural references.

http://lutheran-in-sc.blogspot.com/2014 ... eaven.html

[Ad Orientem]

The whole pets in heaven controversy is a bit above my pay grade. But I do know it has been the subject of some weighty theological debate.

[Mountaineer]

It appears that the people at both those churches have lost sight of the reason for attending church - looks like putting God first and loving your neighbor as yourself are taking a backseat.  Just another example of what happens in our "dog eat dog" world filled with "survival of the fittest", "I'm right, you're wrong" types. 

... Mountaineer

[l82start]

its not a real sign... they are from an internet "meme generator" that lets you fill in a church sign with any message you want and publish it... 

[Ad Orientem]

Humor appears to be a lost cause on this thread.

[Mountaineer]

Humor appears to be a lost cause on this thread.

NEVER!  I laughed a lot when I read the signs.  I will also admit to being gullible - I had no idea you could customize the signs.  Good one.

... Mountaineer (I was there  )

[Mountaineer]

Symbiotic relationship - democracy and religion?

90 seconds, narrated by a Harvard Business School Professor.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/YjntXYDPw44

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Another strike against "America's Newspaper".  The Times seems to be "progressing" in the same vein as many progressive liberal politicians (i.e. the 'truth' is developed on the tongue of the speaker spouting forth what they think the hearers wish to hear and that 'truth' changes faster than their tongue can flicker).

Pope did NOT say animals are going to heaven.  Veith blog.
We linked to the story that the Pope, in comforting a child, said that his dog would go to Heaven.  But he never said that, there was no child, and the attribution was actually to a misunderstanding of something said by Pope Paul VI!  The story, put out by the New York Times, no less, was fake all the way through and a textbook case in incompetent journalism!

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/ ... ng-heaven/

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

Frank the Hippie Pope and Bart the Patriarch Sing Love Songs

http://youtu.be/FoU2o1iRN0U

[Mountaineer]

Psalm 107:8-9

...Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Do you still want to be like Michael Jordan?

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/artic ... rdan-at-50

... Mountaineer

[madbean]

He starts out with about 35 minutes describing evidence for the resurrection, then takes questions (brace yourself, not all Yale students are geniuses), then the last 10 minutes is his personal story. 

Didn't have time to watch it but I'm familiar with the different resurrection stories that are presented in the Bible. Which one do you believe to be historically accurate?

(For the record I don't generally have a problem with someone asserting that Jesus rose from the dead as a matter of faith, faith being the evidence in and of itself, but I have a lot of problems if you refer to specific eyewitness testimony in the so-called inerrant and infallible "Word of God". None of those eyewitness accounts agree - if it's really the Word of God why can't he get the story straight"?)

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

In a different thread, with regards to the "self-evident" nature of Christianity, you said this:

Christianity is self-evident because of the resurrection and 2000 years of intense scrutiny and skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it.

This is a pretty shaky argument for something that it supposedly self-evident.

First off you say "because of the resurrection," which almost looks like you are saying is "self-evident," which I find to be ridiculous on its face (please explain how the resurrection of Christ is self-evident)... but then you follow with what appears to be some inductive support (ie, "2000 years of intense scrutiny").

Scrutiny does not necessarily lend truth... in fact the mere fact that you even have to scrutinize something means that you're probably dealing with inductive evidence rather than a proven truth.  But moving on from that, even if you think this scrutiny has lent EVIDENCE of the resurrection, how much actual evidence do you need to determine something is "self-evident."  Once again, the mere fact you are gathering EVIDENCE for something probably means that the answer to the riddle is NOT self-evident.

And the last piece of that... "skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it"... is pretty ridiculous insofar that 1) the burden of proof is always on the person claiming something to be truth, not the skeptic saying "it might not be," and 2) "skeptics" will likely never be able to "prove" the negative that is "Christ was not resurrected."  It's an almost impossible task.  And it is by no means required to destroy this idea that Christianity is self-evident.  All a skeptic has to do to disqualify Christianity as being self-evident is poke holes in the 100% truth of its assertions.  Unless Christians can prove logically or lend very, very strong evidence for, empirically, it will be abundantly simple for "skeptics" to decimate the assertion that Christianity is self-evident.

I'll say the same thing I've said to Kshartle about his asinine assertions about morality...

You put yourself in an extremely precarious position when you say that something is logically deductively provable, or even more-so that it is self evident.  Christianity MIGHT be true (just as self-ownership MIGHT be morally correct).  However, you win over very few people who use critical thinking if you say that it is self-evident, or deductively provable, and then have your argument as to why completely fall on its face.  It just confirms every reason why skeptics have so little trust in all these assertions to begin with.

And to the handful of "Christian Apologetics" arguments I've seen, the entire idea behind which is to lend empirical/logical evidence towards Christianity being correct, they fail abundantly at that, as they either are 1) self-referential (using the Bibe to prove Christianity  ), 2) simply attack random atheist opinions by showing how those arguments might not hold water (these arguments tend not to adequately prove the existence of God, much less lend evidence for the Christian view of who God is and what He wants), or 3) refer to some loose third party evidence from time-to-time.

I'm sure it's already been posted and I missed it, but if somebody can provide me a "quintessential Christian Apologetics" article, book, podcast, etc, I'd love to read or hear something that really digs into a valid rational support for Christianity.  What I've read/heard so far has been pretty weak but for their ability to partially disassemble and validly criticize certain hardcore atheist arguments.  But these are red herrings to proving Christianity being true.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

In a different thread, with regards to the "self-evident" nature of Christianity, you said this:

Christianity is self-evident because of the resurrection and 2000 years of intense scrutiny and skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it.

This is a pretty shaky argument for something that it supposedly self-evident.

First off you say "because of the resurrection," which almost looks like you are saying is "self-evident," which I find to be ridiculous on its face (please explain how the resurrection of Christ is self-evident)... but then you follow with what appears to be some inductive support (ie, "2000 years of intense scrutiny").

Scrutiny does not necessarily lend truth... in fact the mere fact that you even have to scrutinize something means that you're probably dealing with inductive evidence rather than a proven truth.  But moving on from that, even if you think this scrutiny has lent EVIDENCE of the resurrection, how much actual evidence do you need to determine something is "self-evident."  Once again, the mere fact you are gathering EVIDENCE for something probably means that the answer to the riddle is NOT self-evident.

And the last piece of that... "skeptics unsuccessfully trying to disprove it"... is pretty ridiculous insofar that 1) the burden of proof is always on the person claiming something to be truth, not the skeptic saying "it might not be," and 2) "skeptics" will likely never be able to "prove" the negative that is "Christ was not resurrected."  It's an almost impossible task.  And it is by no means required to destroy this idea that Christianity is self-evident.  All a skeptic has to do to disqualify Christianity as being self-evident is poke holes in the 100% truth of its assertions.  Unless Christians can prove logically or lend very, very strong evidence for, empirically, it will be abundantly simple for "skeptics" to decimate the assertion that Christianity is self-evident.

I'll say the same thing I've said to Kshartle about his asinine assertions about morality...

You put yourself in an extremely precarious position when you say that something is logically deductively provable, or even more-so that it is self evident.  Christianity MIGHT be true (just as self-ownership MIGHT be morally correct).  However, you win over very few people who use critical thinking if you say that it is self-evident, or deductively provable, and then have your argument as to why completely fall on its face.  It just confirms every reason why skeptics have so little trust in all these assertions to begin with.

And to the handful of "Christian Apologetics" arguments I've seen, the entire idea behind which is to lend empirical/logical evidence towards Christianity being correct, they fail abundantly at that, as they either are 1) self-referential (using the Bibe to prove Christianity  ), 2) simply attack random atheist opinions by showing how those arguments might not hold water (these arguments tend not to adequately prove the existence of God, much less lend evidence for the Christian view of who God is and what He wants), or 3) refer to some loose third party evidence from time-to-time.

I'm sure it's already been posted and I missed it, but if somebody can provide me a "quintessential Christian Apologetics" article, book, podcast, etc, I'd love to read or hear something that really digs into a valid rational support for Christianity.  What I've read/heard so far has been pretty weak but for their ability to partially disassemble and validly criticize certain hardcore atheist arguments.  But these are red herrings to proving Christianity being true.

Moda, I truly hope you (and other unbelievers) one day become open to hearing Jesus' call to you.  I have repeatedly told you where you need to go to meet Jesus where He has promised to be.  Yet, all I hear from you are "logical" and "rational" avoidance, diversion, and asking the same questions in a different manner.  I really don't think there is any more that I can do to aid you in your quest (for the ultimate meaning in life?) - it is in God's hands to nurture His gift of faith.  If you were baptized, faith was/is within you; you just need to let that faith be nurtured by continuing to receive the gifts of God and take care not to kill it.

Perhaps something a bit different would interest you - something like "Man's Search For Meaning" by Viktor Frankel - and inspire you to 'see' something beyond what your five senses tell you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_S ... or_Meaning


The Lord bless thee, and keep thee: The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:  The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.  Numbers 6:24-26

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

You have explained to us what we can do, these are all things that require a non-objective non-rational area of our soul/psyche... but then in certain conversations where we ask you why you don't give any credence to other religions, you try to claim that Christianity is "self-evident," refer to Christian Apologetics, that there's lots of "rational evidence" for Christianity being true, and that the Bible doesn't conflict with itself or other historical accounts of what happened.  When we challenge the self-evident/deductive/inductive support for any of these claims, you move back to the self-referential stuff, and stating what we can do to have God find us (usually involving spending hours-if-not-days-if-not-weeks exposing ourselves to unproven, evidence non-backed assertions about what God wants from us from ONE SUB-SET of Christian thought) and that rationality doesn't work with religion.

The reason I keep diving into a rational, objective support for Christianity is because you (with Desert's help) keep insisting it exists.  You even go so far as to claim Jesus' resurrection as "self-evident." 

So which is it... is there a reasonable rational case for Christianity, or isn't there?

[Ad Orientem]

A blessed Theophany to everyone. This priest is clearly enthusiastic about the feast, that or he is trying to exorcize any demoniacs that might be around.

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2015/01/extr ... rsion.html

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

You have explained to us what we can do, these are all things that require a non-objective non-rational area of our soul/psyche... but then in certain conversations where we ask you why you don't give any credence to other religions, you try to claim that Christianity is "self-evident," refer to Christian Apologetics, that there's lots of "rational evidence" for Christianity being true, and that the Bible doesn't conflict with itself or other historical accounts of what happened.  When we challenge the self-evident/deductive/inductive support for any of these claims, you move back to the self-referential stuff, and stating what we can do to have God find us (usually involving spending hours-if-not-days-if-not-weeks exposing ourselves to unproven, evidence non-backed assertions about what God wants from us from ONE SUB-SET of Christian thought) and that rationality doesn't work with religion.

The reason I keep diving into a rational, objective support for Christianity is because you (with Desert's help) keep insisting it exists.  You even go so far as to claim Jesus' resurrection as "self-evident." 

So which is it... is there a reasonable rational case for Christianity, or isn't there?

John, Chapter 3, For God So Loved the World

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”?

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Here is a website that might be what Moda is looking for:

http://www.reasons.org

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Desert,

I didn't notice that until now. I'll definitely watch that later today or tomorrow.

Thanks!

[madbean]

The accounts are remarkably similar though, aren't they.  How would you explain that they all tell the same basic story (Jesus died, and was resurrected) but apparently differ in some details?

I suspect that telling the same basic story about the fundamental belief of the religion was one of the requirements for inclusion in the New Testament canon so I don't see anything remarkable about that.

But no, I don't think the accounts are remarkably similar otherwise - quite the opposite. And I have no problem with accepting them as evidence (not proof) even with the discrepancies and contradictions if you are willing to concede that they are human documents. It's only when the claim is made that they are divinely inspired, infallible, and free from error that I have to insist on a higher standard.

[Mountaineer]

The accounts are remarkably similar though, aren't they.  How would you explain that they all tell the same basic story (Jesus died, and was resurrected) but apparently differ in some details?

I suspect that telling the same basic story about the fundamental belief of the religion was one of the requirements for inclusion in the New Testament canon so I don't see anything remarkable about that.

But no, I don't think the accounts are remarkably similar otherwise - quite the opposite. And I have no problem with accepting them as evidence (not proof) even with the discrepancies and contradictions if you are willing to concede that they are human documents. It's only when the claim is made that they are divinely inspired, infallible, and free from error that I have to insist on a higher standard.

I have a couple of comments.  The Scriptures are fully God and fully man, just like Jesus.  They are inspired by God, contain exactly what He wishes, and were completely written down by man.  Secondly, the different accounts can be thought of (a poor analogy but helpful) like several witnesses seeing a car accident and weeks or months after the fact recalling several different accounts of the same event.  They get the big picture correctly described (there was a car accident and who hit whom), but may have different descriptions of the exact time or sequence of events and what the people were wearing, the make of car, weather conditions, etc.  I personally think if the various Books of the Bible gave an identical story, I would get VERY suspicious that collusion was going on - they gain credibility because they are different accounts written by different people over hundreds of years but still tell the same story of God keeping his promises, never giving up on us sinful people, and finally sending a Savior to redeem us.

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

I have a couple of comments.  The Scriptures are fully God and fully man, just like Jesus... 
... Mountaineer

Ummm no. The Bible is divinely inspired, but it is NOT divine unlike the most Holy Mysteries of the Altar. Perhaps your fingers got the better of your brain. It's happened to me. But the Bible is not God. God exists only in the Three Person of the Trinity.

[madbean]

I have a couple of comments.  The Scriptures are fully God and fully man, just like Jesus. 

I can respect that belief though I don't necessarily share it.

But are you are really saying that some parts of the Bible might actually be in error due to the fully man part? If so, I think this might put you on shaky ground with those who hold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy if you happen to belong to that tribe.

Interesting to know your thoughts on the subject (I mean YOUR thoughts and not a link to some Christian apologist).

[madbean]

But the Bible is not God.

Agreed. The Bible itself says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus. I have a hard time relegating the same status to a book. I guess you could say I don't think this belief is "Biblical".

[moda0306]

I have a couple of comments.  The Scriptures are fully God and fully man, just like Jesus. 

I can respect that belief.

But are you are really saying that some parts of the Bible might actually be in error due to the fully man part? If so, I think this might put you on shaky ground with those who hold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

Interesting to know your thoughts on the subject (I mean YOUR thoughts and not a link to some Christian apologist).

This is extremely important!

If Mountaineer is suggesting that while the Bible is 100% God's will as it is written, but not necessarily 100% true (I'd assert that the Bible CAN'T be 100% true, and it appears that this is the case), than I've been mis-hearing him for a while.

And this begs the next huge question.  How do we know what is 100% true, and what is "close enough, but not quite right, because it was written by a fallible man."

This begs a ton of other questions about "interpretation" of the Bible's passages.

Holy crap I've think we've dropped a powder-keg into this thread.