TheLegendaryNAS

A thought...

Christians are taught to follow, serve and worship Jesus Christ since doing so is the only way to absolve oneself of sins. It is because Jesus Christ died on the cross that they are saved.

However, is this just an excuse to place the shame and despair of earthly existence on someone else?

For example, does Jesus not say that "if anyone should follow him, he/she must take up and bear his own cross"?

I am of the opinion that we have humans beings have the potential to be like Jesus Christ and the only way to do so however is by crucifying ourselves. I don't mena this literally though. By crucifying, I mean that we must get rid of our egos and sense of self, such as by having a nervous breakdown.

Discuss...

(BTW, I don't consider myself Christian)

cathryn

are you possibly forgetting that christians believe Jesus was the song of god (and god in human form)?

no one's forcing you to be a christian.

__________________
"there is nothing more terrifying than a nineteen year old american boy."

TheLegendaryNAS

I've been thinking about that too. I don't remember reading in the where Christ says EXPLICITLY that he is the Son of God. I'm not saying that he isn't, but I still think his divinity is still up for debate. I do remember being told that he is the Word of God, but I don't know if that qualifies as being the same or not.

/off-topic.

In my humble opinion, the Christ mythos is allegorical to some sort of cultural/psychological process.

cathryn

how about this: you can decide what you beleive and believe that. and then other people can do the same.

i don't see you freaking out about elephant-like gods that hindus believe in.

__________________
"there is nothing more terrifying than a nineteen year old american boy."

TheLegendaryNAS

*Tsk* *Tsk* Such a poor understanding of the Hindu faith. You know instead of just telling me to mind my own business, why can't we discuss Faith in a civilized manner?

cathryn

i was being sarcastic about your seemingly limited understanding of the christian faith.

the definition of faith doesn't not lend itself to discussion about whether or not it's valid.

__________________
"there is nothing more terrifying than a nineteen year old american boy."

TheLegendaryNAS

Hmph. Semanitics/definitions aside, it sounds like an excuse to me.

Please enlighten me.

cathryn

"faith" implies belief if something regardless of proof. "god" and "the holy spirit" are not things that can be proven or disproven. therefore, a belief in one or both of them is a very personal choice.

__________________
"there is nothing more terrifying than a nineteen year old american boy."

TheLegendaryNAS

Nonsense. Some things that are not seen can be deduced logically. You cannot see air, but you know that it is there because the leaves are fluttering. Likewise, with spiritual matters we say with certainty that God exists. In what way does he? What is his nature? These kinds of things can be looked at from an objective just as much as the subjective.

PurdueDoubleE

>_>

<_<








>_>

Mothrog

OK, how?

TheLegendaryNAS

Silly. Why do you think we have things like metaphysics?

Instead of getting into those hefty issues however, here are some empirical proofs I found just by going to Wikipedia.

-The Teleological argument, which argues that the universe's order and complexity shows signs of purpose (telos), and that it must have been designed by an intelligent designer with properties that only a god could have.
-The Anthropic argument focuses on basic facts, such as our existence, to prove God.
-The Moral argument argues that objective morality exists and that therefore God exists.
-The Transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God. Therefore, atheist arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

Mothrog

That's right up there with intelligent design. That's not proof. That's a supposition. In order to believe that, you have to believe that complex behavior can only be exhibited by systems that have been influenced by an intelligent hand. Anyone who has studied classical mechanics or the like can tell you otherwise.



OK... But again, you'd have to believe God was necessary for us to exist in the first place. I can't say I believe that, so I'm not convinced by such a proof.



Which would again be predicated on the belief that morality could not exist without God, but then to take such an argument seriously you would have to believe in God in the first place.



How do science, logic, and ethics not make sense without god?

Bottom line, to believe most "proofs" of God's existence, you have to believe God exists in the first place. It's still faith, no matter how you slice it.

cathryn

we can prove that air exists because of the chemicals in it.

christ.

__________________
"there is nothing more terrifying than a nineteen year old american boy."

TheLegendaryNAS

Okay, how about this:

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality.
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding.
6. From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

Mothrog

But in order to believe 1 you'd have to believe that God was the supreme being, hence the proof fails again.

TheLegendaryNAS

Well, what other being is there greater than God then?

Mothrog

For all I know, God is a more advanced form of life that happens to be able to pull the purse strings of the Earth. That does not mean that God is the supreme being.

TheLegendaryNAS

Well just what is your defintion of God then? Surely, it can't be that because we have plenty of mortals down here who do that.

VVO]2M

Piss on this thread.

Mothrog

God to me is a mythical figure that plays the role of the highest diety in Judeo-Christian religions.

TheLegendaryNAS

Okay, I suppose that definition is valid, but that's not what I'm asking. What qualifies God to be God?

CMetzger42

Hey, someone's taking/taken PHIL 206! Lovely rendition of Anselm's Ontological Argument. Until you can define your god such that all those great-making qualities are logically compatible and have an upper cap to the perfection, you might as well be making up perfect islands.

__________________
Love is like a cheese
Wholesome, round and fulfilling
Rather have cheese though

Mothrog

Exactly my point. The definition of God, varies between cultures and religions. What qualifies God to be God may be an entirely different thing in an Eastern vs. a Western culture, hence Buddhism vs. Christianity, or, say, the Aztec's conception of Quetzalcoatl. To take the Judeo-Chrisitian definition of God, God is an omniscient and omnipotent being, the only of its kind. But, then again, Anselm's proof depends on a definition of God. Would two omiscient, omnipotent beings not be powerful then one? So, following Anselm's logic, would you not conclude that ther must be two Gods. But wait, three Gods must be better then two, so there so must three, on off to having infinite Gods. Bottom line, I don't think the proof works.