Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danydandan

Logical issues with belief.

429 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Phaeton80
59 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Interesting...I think you're referring to the question that was something like...it's irrational to believe God exists without proof?

I guess I answered it differently than you. I think it would be nutty (to me) to believe in God without proof He exists. I could just as easily decide to believe fairies exist. And I'd be every bit as nutty for that! 

Maybe they assumed I had no proof...true, I can't share my proof with them. Not true that I don't have proof. That's odd when I think about it. 


Oh I didnt say there wasnt proof, just not physical / direct, more circumstantial / indirect / intangible. Like, say, the intelligent design that permeates every facet of this reality.. Belief is based on the interpretation of the observer, thats the issue, there is no definitive proof. Hence the word 'faith'.

 

Btw; this was the Nessie question:

"If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist."

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
37 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Theories never become laws. A scientific theory is an explanation backed up with verifiable evidence.

BTW Newton's law of gravitation does not explain what "gravity" is.

You are  right. Laws are observed phenomenon between two or more things, as they interact. Theories attempt to explain why and how. The theories can change, and often do, as more is discovered. The laws don't change. But without the theories, no satellite would ever have been put into space, planes couldn't fly, and  so on and so on. So they don't operate without one another. Without observing a law or principle, no theory would be developed and no plane would fly. 

I do not believe humans evolved from apes or fish and I do not believe these things are verifiable. But the laws of motion are verifiable and no plane could fly if they were ignored.. Because they are verifiable and do not change (they are reliable) they are laws. 

Keep in mind that you are talking to a regular old gal and not a scientist. I learn even as I discuss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
23 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


Oh I didnt say there wasnt proof, just not physical / direct, more circumstantial / indirect / intangible. Like, say, the intelligent design that permeates every facet of this reality.. Belief is based on the interpretation of the observer, thats the issue, there is no definitive proof. Hence the word 'faith'.

So if you answered that it would be illogical to believe lochness with no proof, and you answered that it would be illogical to believe God existed with no  proof, then why did you receive the "bullet?"

My assumption was that you answered one as true and one as false. You should have received no bullet if you answered both the same way. Of course, in my opinion, the fault lies with the test, because it is assumed by the test writer that no one has proof that God exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
56 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

I don't think scientists killed scientists! I mean, they could have I suppose, but I've never heard of it in any writings. no, it was the church that killed scientists for their remarks. I think it was mostly scientists who said Copernicus was correct that were persecuted...might have that wrong...think it was men who believed Copernicus to be correct who were burned and tortured...

Now there you go - spot on correct. The good ol church killed anybody not in compliance with their beliefs. Once again, that lil fixation they had with the power and control thing. Oh wait, they still have it....:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
9 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Now there you go - spot on correct. The good ol church killed anybody not in compliance with their beliefs. Once again, that lil fixation they had with the power and control thing. Oh wait, they still have it....:D

If they were the true church, they would not have done so. In my opinion. But then, my opinion is that if one claims to follow Christ but is nothing like Him, they are a liar and imposter. At least that's where I currently am. I'm with the man who said, I love Jesus, but I don't like those who claim to follow Him, or something like that...

Edited by Jen5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

But I did start thinking more and I think there were probably scientists who weren't very bright (every field has that problem), and they probably didn't like bright scientists who said they were wrong, and so they whispered in the ear of the church, hey, that guys a heretic because yada, yada. And the dim scientist, being a little less dim than the church officials, thereby got rid of his competition...I can see it anyway. So...what was my point? Sometimes I just gabs for no reason...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
20 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

If they were the true church, they would not have done so. In my opinion. But then, my opinion is that if one claims to follow Christ but is nothing like Him, they are a liar and imposter. At least that's where I currently am. I'm with the man who said, I love Jesus, but I don't like those who claim to follow Him, or something like that...

I think those "true" churches were - in actuality - probably the worst offenders......

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
14 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

I think those "true" churches were - in actuality - probably the worst offenders......

 

I disagree. Would the true church truthfully say they follow it's founde r and then proceed to be the complete opposite of him and not do anything he told them to? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

That would make them hypocritical liars, not followers of Jesus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
8 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

That would make them hypocritical liars, not followers of Jesus. 

Peter was a hypocritical liar.  He denied Christ and cursed him during the Crucifixion.  He cut off a guys ear with his sword before the crucifixion.  He violently assaulted Roman guards and stole the body of Christ after the crucifixion. And the church is built on Peter the Rock right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
25 minutes ago, joc said:

Peter was a hypocritical liar.  He denied Christ and cursed him during the Crucifixion.  He cut off a guys ear with his sword before the crucifixion.  He violently assaulted Roman guards and stole the body of Christ after the crucifixion. And the church is built on Peter the Rock right?

Can you give me the source for all of your assertions? I'm assuming you've obtained the first three from a bible, the fourth assertion I'm curious on and am thinking it came from some other source and I would like to read it, and the last assertion I'm guessing...the Catholic church?

do you believe all of your assertions to be true? I'm just curious.

Edited by Jen5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
29 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

I disagree. Would the true church truthfully say they follow it's founde r and then proceed to be the complete opposite of him and not do anything he told them to? 

Well....they did it, and with impunity. Their cause  was "right".......of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:


Oh I didnt say there wasnt proof, just not physical / direct, more circumstantial / indirect / intangible. Like, say, the intelligent design that permeates every facet of this reality.. Belief is based on the interpretation of the observer, thats the issue, there is no definitive proof. Hence the word 'faith'.

 

Btw; this was the Nessie question:

"If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist."

Faith just means believe and trust. I wouldn't put my faith in someone imaginary. And they would be imaginary to me unless or until they showed me they were anything other than. Or else I would just be wishing and hoping.  That's not belief and trust. In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
3 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

Well....they did it, and with impunity. Their cause  was "right".......of course. 

I don't believe they did it with impunity. I think they'll answer for it. I also don't believe their cause was right.  Just my opinion though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
7 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

Can you give me the source for all of your assertions? I'm assuming you've obtained the first three from a bible, the third assertion I'm curious on and am thinking it came from some other source and I would like to read it, and the fourth assertion I'm guessing...the Catholic church?it

do you believe all of your assertions to be true? I'm just curious.

The first three are Biblical.  The assertion of Peter stealing the body of Jesus is not sourced.  It is just what I think is the most logical scenario since I obviously do not believe Jesus was resurrected.  Nor do I have a source that links Peter to the Catholic Church.  But we do know that Peter was violent and that The Catholic Church was also violent. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

oh...but wait...there is this:

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch.

The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2]but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome).

Edited by joc
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster
1 minute ago, Jen5 said:

I don't believe they did it with impunity. I think they'll answer for it. I also don't believe their cause was right.  Just my opinion though. 

I think they did....did you watch that video...? 

A friend of mine once took me to a church in Germany, up in the back are chambers literally filled with thousands of skulls and bones, my friend explained they were all form the Inquisition....Very chilling and disconcerting to actually see.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
1 minute ago, joc said:

The first three are Biblical.  The assertion of Peter stealing the body of Jesus is not sourced.  It is just what I think is the most logical scenario since I obviously do not believe Jesus was resurrected.  Nor do I have a source that links Peter to the Catholic Church.  But we do know that Peter was violent and that The Catholic Church was also violent. 

I agree there was some violence and i mpulsiveness in peter. I guess I can see that he might be your best guess for the one who stole his body.

you know, (I am assuming), that I believe after receiving God's Spirit, the men were changed. Not to perfection and not immediately (one of the men berated Peter for a hypocrisy even after that point) , but  that their hearts began softening and they grew in love. There is no account of any of them murdering those who didn't agree with them when they preached. That appears to have happened much later, going by historians. I guess they could have murdered left and right but failed to put it in their writing...except for paul, he admitted what he had done. And one writer also told of it in the stoning of stephen. I don't know, they didn't seem to be puffed up on Se lf in their writings, but that's just what I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
13 minutes ago, joc said:

oh...but wait...there is this:

According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch.

The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2]but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome).

That's not what I take away from it when I read it. At all. But I guess everyone's entitled to their own thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
16 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

I think they did....did you watch that video...? 

A friend of mine once took me to a church in Germany, up in the back are chambers literally filled with thousands of skulls and bones, my friend explained they were all form the Inquisition....Very chilling and disconcerting to actually see.

Ew...yeah, that would probably haunt me for some time if I saw it.

From what I have read, they will not go forever unpunished and will answer for it. I don't go for any of the nonsense that they will have some magical impunity before God at the end of this age. I know a lot of evangelicals might say so, but it sure doesn't fit with what I read. In fact, being a hypocrite receives a stiffer condemnation than being an unbeliever, or else how would jesu s say it would be wors in the final judgement for hypocrites than for towns God destroyed. That's scary to think that a religious hypocrite will be worse off than an unbeliever. Because they claim the exact opposite! They'll be shocked for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
2 hours ago, Jen5 said:

So if you answered that it would be illogical to believe lochness with no proof, and you answered that it would be illogical to believe God existed with no  proof, then why did you receive the "bullet?"

My assumption was that you answered one as true and one as false. You should have received no bullet if you answered both the same way. Of course, in my opinion, the fault lies with the test, because it is assumed by the test writer that no one has proof that God exists. 

 

No, I mean I dont think there isnt any proof.. I did answer one as true and the other as false, but that still doesnt make the hit sound imo. Like I said, I dont think the two subject matters can be combared in that way.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5
1 minute ago, Phaeton80 said:

 

No, I mean I dont think there isnt any proof.. I did answer one as true and the other as false, but that still doesnt make the hit sound imo. Like I said, I dont think the two subject matters can be combared in that way.

 

Okay, I get you. I think they can be compared th ough...why would you not believe the loch Ness monster exists but then believe God exists if you have no proof of either one? Wouldn't that be more of a ho pe than a belief?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
2 hours ago, Jen5 said:

That's not what I take away from it when I read it. At all. But I guess everyone's entitled to their own thoughts. 

Well, we do know some things for certain.  The Catholic Church started the Knights of Solomon or The Knights Templar...to protect pilgrims from being attacked in the Holy Land by Muslims.  They became so proficient and powerful that the Church colluded with the King of France to destroy them.  Then came the Holy Wars in which slaughter was abound on both sides.  Either way you want to look at it the First Church of the Gooey Death was violent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

Yeah, but I don't believe they were the true church. I believe they were the wolves that came in after. The men who slaughtered men were wolves, not followers of Jesus, in my opinion. Just because they claimed to be the true church and claimed to follow Christ does not mean they were  truthful and not deluded.

I mean, if you claim to follow someone, that means you have studied their teachings and follow their teachings. If you quite plainly do no such thing, your claim is ridiculous, isn't it?

And the fact that you can't see your own hypocrisy just adds abject blindness onto the pile.

Edited by Jen5
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen5

I have really enjoyed talking with you guys today. You are less judgmental, more respectful  and more tolerant of other beliefs than a lot of the people I've run across in supposedly Christian forums who claim to follow Jesus. They are quite often intolerant of a different understanding than their own, sometimes coming to spittle flinging rage over the translation of a word - no kidding. They can really slaughter each other and get truly vicious and angry. It ought not to be so, but it sometimes is. Though you meet some very gentle, humble and caring ones there too. They're just harder to find.

I hope to return for more conversation some day soon. Thanks for not shrieking at me when you found out I believe God exists. Not sure why I thought you might...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.