Canada Canadian Theological Debate Thread

2) Is Easter getting as bad as Christmas? (by that I mean the true meaning being lost)

By true meaning being lost, are we referring to the complete lack of proper worship towards Ostare? Of course, you may be referring to Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess. As I understand it, it was about this time of year that the celebrations of Attis' annual rebirth would begin...

Yeah - seems that the meaning is sort of a pale shadow of what it should be, and nobody really celebrates it right. Sure, all the bunnies and eggs and such are nice as symbols, but is anyone out there actually celebrating fertility and rebirth through acts of wonton unbridled passion?

Obviously if you're on the forum - that's not the case. Oh well. better luck to you for next year.

--

Of course, if you're refering to those who follow the God of Moses, I couldn't agree with you more. The Jews still show proper adherence to Passover, but the Christians' and their assorted denominations show little to no recognition of it. Why they hang onto the books of Moses and words of the Prophets is beyond me if they're going to just crazily toss it all out the window.

I mean, c'mon... a big roasted ham? Is the big G really okay with that sort of thing at the time of Passover?

 

Just would quickly like to correct Tragic... there is no god Moses, there is a person named moses who is in the Torah.

And there is also no book of Moses. The story of passover can be found in the book Exodus.

Jews still do celebrate Passover fairly traditionally and most jews do not eat bread and do stay kosher for that week.

 

Just to correct the correction -
What I said was God of Moses. Not that Moses was a god. But he had a god whom he believed in and followed.

The books of Moses that I refered to include Exodus. They are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutoronomy.

Not sure if it's an excepted tenant of most places of worship or not, but the lore I'm most familiar with is that Moses authored those texts under divine editorialship.

 

As far as i know the 5 books of the Torah (what you mentioned) had nothing to do with Moses. I believe the books were written well after that time. All he really did was lead the Jews out of Egypt, across the Desert and then find the land of Israel which he did not enter himself. He spent the rest of his life in exile.

P.S. i apologize about my first correction, i did not read your statement clearly enough.

 

Holy Moses!

I learn more post by post on here...

 

The books may not pertain to Moses, but a few google searches confirms that there is a traditional belief that Moses was author of the Torah.

This is reinforced for the Christian community by text from the New Testament that asserts Mosaic authorship.

Don't know enough about Islamic tradition or the quaran to know if there is an assertion of Mosaic authorship there as well.

Of course - it is very, very improbable that Moses was the author of the torah. The majority of scholars and theologians agree that it was likely authored many years after the fact.

 

Well about Easter...

Ham is good The majority of Christians are not Jewish, the meaning of the whole Ham this is a custom not forced on Gentiles

The resurrection is the most important part of Christianity. Without the resurrection Christ was just a man. This event is what ultimately showed His followers that He IS God. Its celebrated every Easter.

Yes Bunnies and Chocolate and the baskets have taken over the events, much in the way Santa Clause has the Christmas tradition.

Its celebrated on a common Spring celebration as many other rituals, yes. But it does not make it less of an impact that it is today.


About the Toran etc.

It IS important to Christians...its the beginning...does it matter who wrote it really? Its historical, and VERY accurate for being wrote from stories

 

Lol this is not meant to offend anyone but i'm just bringing up an interesting thought...

Does anyone believe that Jesus may have been the first magician? Now a days there are people who can use 'magic' to make large objects disapear, escape death situations etc...

Now think of how gullable people were back then believing in witchcraft etc. They see a guy sopposedly be killed then walk back three days later... Of course they are going to think of him as a god...

Just a thought.

 

Personal opinion from ye ol' atheist regarding the Christ ressurection...

I don't believe there was any wilful trickery or tom-foolery involved with. Nor do I believe people were 'gullible' in regards to the following of Christ.

People are succeptable to irrational and emotionally based decisions - even when all logic and facts point to the contrary.

The gospels tap into some powerful truths and emotions - which is why they hold sway as they do.

 

the resurrection is what is central wot Christian beliefs. If Christ was not raised from the dead, then everything we believe is in vain, and yet there are many who don't understand what the resurrection was.

it is impossible to think that Jesus did not die on the cross....the Romans were experts at execution

it is foolish to think the body was stolen, Roman guards liked to be alive, they would not have just "fallen asleep" or let the body be taken

the body wasn't there....that's what started the uproar. Jesus had been buried, it was over, the desciples were mourning...and then they discover they can't even mourn because there is no body

Jesus was alive. he appeared to many, many people. Some say that because the evidene is only in the bible, it really didn't happen. Many things in the Bible have prooven to be accurate, there is no reason (except skepticism) to think this is not accurate.

But here's the thing...if Jesus did not raise from the dad, then Christians are lost, and not only that, but we are practicing idolatry, giving worship to someone other than God. But Peter and Paul in Acts give clear evidence from the Old Testament that the Messiah would not stay dead in the grave. Other people in the Bible were resurected, but for some reason, people can't belive that Jesus was

ok...so this probably looked more like a rant than something intelegent...it's exam week, i'm fried

 

Some say that because the evidene is only in the bible, it really didn't happen. Many things in the Bible have prooven to be accurate, there is no reason (except skepticism) to think this is not accurate.

Because page one contained a truth is not proof enough that page two is true as well.

We know that some events in the Bible are true because they are corroborated by other recordings or evidence. It's only proper to request the same for what is considered by Christians to be the most critical event in the book.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, (sixty to one hundred miles away). Matthew says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence. Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived. And so on and so forth.

I'm going to keep leaning towards skepticism.

 

those differences in accounts you mentioned are typical of people telling any story. no judge would accapt if three witnesses said they saw exactly the same thing.
I know skepticism makes sense, but there is a need for faith. You're right, it isone of the most important events in the book, and just the very fact that Jesus appeared more than once shows some validity, not to mention that most everything written in the New Testament hinges on this fact. Now, if, when the books were written, it could not have been prooven by eye witness accounts that Jesus resurected, would the authors have placed such an emphsis on it? It's logical that it is true, because otheriwise, (i.e. had it been easy to disproove at the time of writing), it would not have survived past the time of writing.

 

... no judge would accapt if three witnesses said they saw exactly the same thing.

Really?
Not sure about that - but what would the judge do with a case where one witness says the event happened in Toronto and the other says it happened in Cleveland?

---

It's logical that it is true, because otheriwise, (i.e. had it been easy to disproove at the time of writing), it would not have survived past the time of writing.

How many people still to this day, believe one of Columbus' motives in sailing the Atlantic was to prove the world was round?
t'wasn't true.

How many people truly and fully believe that a young George Washington chopped down a cherry tree?
I can not tell a lie - it never happened.

A lot of ideas survive for years after the fact. The age of an idea has little bearing on the truthfulness of said idea.

--
But the real root of the issue comes when you state: I know skepticism makes sense, but there is a need for faith.

To which I must ask 'why?'
We are told again and again that we have to have faith. Believe in something though your senses tell you otherwise. Believe in something though your mind tells you otherwise. Believe because others believe in it. Believe because you're told to believe. Believe in something without proof or chance of proof.

why?

 

We are told again and again that we have to have faith. Believe in something though your senses tell you otherwise. Believe in something though your mind tells you otherwise. Believe because others believe in it. Believe because you're told to believe. Believe in something without proof or chance of proof.

You mean, like the "big bang."

Faith isn't religion centered. Its not something that only Christian's have.

Do you believe in the Wind? Is it logical for the wind to blow the dirt, the trees, to pull at your clothes, mess up your hair?
Can you show me a single shred of evidence that the wind exists? Show me?

You can't. You can show the effects, how it interacts with its enviroment, but not the wind itself. And in this parallel its the same for faith in God or otherwise.

I believe in Jesus(God) because of personal experiences, historical proof and many other reasons. I don't need to watch the war of 1812 to know it happened.

Faith is something personal, but everyone has it. Its the ability to believe in something thats not yourself, to trust in something more than yourself.

Faith is not a Christian thing, it's a human nessesity.

 

i do not believe in something becaus ei am told to belive, my mind does not tell me otherwise. i believe because of my experiences. i know that means pretty much nothing to your life, but heck, most of what everyone knows is because of experience.
i don't have all the logical arguments for faith and Jesus, but if you would sincerly like to hear some, try finding a copy of "Case for Faith" or "Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I haven't read them, but have heard bits and pieces. Also "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell has some great stuff too. You're looking for reasons why people believe, why people would want to...these books might answer some questions.

 

Primrodo - observation of wind and 'faith' are two vastly different concepts.

Faith is a firm conviction in something with no evidence.

I do not 'believe' or have 'faith' in the wind. It is not a mysterious, random, mystical force.

I have evidence that the wind exists by the very items you mention; dirt blowing, clothes being tugged at, hair messing up. What's more, I can empirically measure the wind. I can quantify the velocity and direction. Using the existing body of evidences and measurements available, I can come up with a theory as to what causes the wind --- Air is a fluid which moves in circuits, powered by unequal heating of large masses of air. As the Earth's surface is warmed differentially, the air above these surfaces absorbs different amounts of heat. Warmer air rises while cool air sinks which creates the environment for flowing air movement. Winds flow across parallels of latitude, taking heat from equatorial regions to polar regions. This equalizing process causes wind.

I can visit Environment Canada and get a fairly accurate prediction of what the wind will be doing tomorrow and the day after (in Toronto it will be out of the southwest 30 km/h with afternoon gusts to 50 km/h). I can probably download the meterological measurements and figure it out for myself, should I wish to.

I don't have 'faith' in the wind - I know it as an observable, measurable and predictable force.

I don't have 'faith' that the war of 1812 occured - there is more than enough independent, corroborating evidence that the war took place. Should I wish to, I can view and examine this evidence and weigh the validity of such myself.

I don't have 'faith' in the Big Bang. The Big Bang is simply the model that best fits the evidence at hand. Anyone who has a better model that fits the observations at hand is more than welcome to step forward with it, get their photo in all the text books and claim a nobel prize. But for now - as far as cosmological beginnings go - the Big Bang is what we have to work with.

You say that faith is the ability to believe in something thats not yourself, to trust in something more than yourself, and assert that it's a necessity. I'm sorry, but that seems nonsensicle to me.

Man's primary means of survival is reason. Reason. It's the one tool that comes to us naturally. How can abandoning it be a necessity? How could you abandon your judgement to another? Why would you?

 

'im_possessed', you say you came to a religious understanding due to your life experiences - and that I can understand and respect.

I've scanned Lee Strobel's works one afternoon in Chapters. I'm afraid I didn't find his 'case for faith' too convincing, so didn't bother buying it.

I've not read Josh McDowell's book, though I do recall it being referenced quite a bit back when I used to read alt.atheism and I also recall reading a long but interesting rebuttal to the book... (a couple google searches later)... here

Though truth be told - the particular apologetics of the matter (was there a census, who was the true author of the torah, if Christ was likely nailed through the wrists why do people with stigmata bleed from the palms, etc. etc.) are just interesting side details to me.

What I really find interesting is people's beliefs, their reasons for believing as such and the effect such beliefs have on the individual and society.

 

We share an interest...I'm also very curious about what otherpeople believe and why, in fact, it is that curiosity which has been a catalyst in my deepening belief in God.

Through my experiences, and the lives of people I am close to, I have no doubt in the existance of a creator, even in the times when I was ignoring God, I could not deny the existance of God. If you would like to hear why I went from beyon belief in God to belief in Jesus, just PM me, I'd be happy to tell you.

SO what are your belifs? I gather from what you've posted that you are athiest, but your comment about the big bang shows you're also open-minded.

Oh, and I'm going to read that rebuttal, I'll let you knoww hat I think of it when I'm done

 

My own beliefs...

I call myself an atheist for it succinctly and quickly explains what I am not. I am without a belief in gods. But you're right - it doesn't convey anything that I actually believe or think. Generally, as a rule, I avoid ism's or ist's to describe myself. It's too easy to pigeonhole yourself in a description that may come close but doesn't quite make the cut.

'I don't believe in ism's, I just believe in me.'
-Ferris Bueller

I believe that reality exists independant of our conciousness - but that through the data collected by our senses and the application of reason to those senses, we can ascertain just what reality is.

I do believe that the quest for what reality is will always be ongoing. That we will never have all the information required to complete the picture. Each new piece of data must be compared with the previous to either bolster the prevailing theory, or knock it askew in favour of a new theory.

Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle where you have no idea what the final image is supposed to be. Each piece put into place gives a bit more of the image. You'll never complete the puzzle - there will always be a couple pieces missing - but that doesn't mean you can't come up with a good guess based on the parts you have.

 

You'll never complete the puzzle - there will always be a couple pieces missing - but that doesn't mean you can't come up with a good guess based on the parts you have.

could it be that we each have different pieces of the same puzzel?

 

could it be that we each have different pieces of the same puzzel?

Well - if it weren't for a number of your pieces not quite fitting together with mine, I'd say it were possible. But those pieces you have of the sky and lightning and cherubs don't seem to mesh thematically with the pieces I have of a pale blue dot on a field of stars.

Keep them in reserve. You've obviously managed to fit a number of them together so it's working for you. But I honestly can't see how you'd fit them into the main picture without having to remove a good portion of the existing picture to accomodate or without lots of smashing and jamming together of pieces.

So no. They're not really the pieces I'm looking for - but you hang onto them as long as you think you need them for.

Have we worn this metaphor out yet?

 

me wear out a medaphore...never lol

out of my morbid curiosity, do you have any room in your belifs about the world for the spiritual at all?

 

There are times that I feel awe or reverance. But I don't know if it's right to term such feelings as 'spiritual'.

When it comes to matters of the supernatural - no. I'm afraid those pieces just don't fit.

I can accept the strange, the weird and the fantastic. But I find that too often the supernatural or paranormal is a leap that individuals make to fill a gap with their own predetermined results. Occam's Razor is my guide for this sort of thing. If you hear the thundering of hooves - think horses, not centaurs.

 

observation of wind and 'faith' are two vastly different concepts.

Faith is a firm conviction in something with no evidence.

I do not 'believe' or have 'faith' in the wind. It is not a mysterious, random, mystical force.

I have evidence that the wind exists by the very items you mention; dirt blowing, clothes being tugged at, hair messing up. What's more, I can empirically measure the wind. I can quantify the velocity and direction. Using the existing body of evidences and measurements available, I can come up with a theory as to what causes the wind --- Air is a fluid which moves in circuits, powered by unequal heating of large masses of air. As the Earth's surface is warmed differentially, the air above these surfaces absorbs different amounts of heat. Warmer air rises while cool air sinks which creates the environment for flowing air movement. Winds flow across parallels of latitude, taking heat from equatorial regions to polar regions. This equalizing process causes wind.

I can visit Environment Canada and get a fairly accurate prediction of what the wind will be doing tomorrow and the day after (in Toronto it will be out of the southwest 30 km/h with afternoon gusts to 50 km/h). I can probably download the meterological measurements and figure it out for myself, should I wish to.

I don't have 'faith' in the wind - I know it as an observable, measurable and predictable force.

But can you prove to me it exists? Wind is something you will never see, could never see, and can only see its effects. Like God.

I have a Bible, I have seen things with my own eyes, felt things, told things that I would never know.

Yes they are different things in reality, but the metaphor suffices. God isn't something that needs to be shown, like say a tree. But the hand and the effects of God is what we see the day over.

Wind is predictiable? LOL! Since when

I don't have 'faith' that the war of 1812 occured - there is more than enough independent, corroborating evidence that the war took place. Should I wish to, I can view and examine this evidence and weigh the validity of such myself.

I don't have 'faith' in the Big Bang. The Big Bang is simply the model that best fits the evidence at hand. Anyone who has a better model that fits the observations at hand is more than welcome to step forward with it, get their photo in all the text books and claim a nobel prize. But for now - as far as cosmological beginnings go - the Big Bang is what we have to work with.

The 1812 comment was only to show that though you weren't there to see it or experience it DID happen. As did Christ walk this earth and rise from the dead, though none of have been there on either event we must have faith and trust that the facts were written down and what we are told was true.

The Big Bang is not all we have to work with. In fact (And I'll look for my sources to show you) many don't agree with it. It's a theory, but one that has made too many gaps that are trying to be filled in way to hard.

Things like the 2nd Law of thermodynamics (A natural Scientific law that applies to absolutely everything) are thrown out the window JUST for it to occur.

In fact evidence suggests that the Earth itself isn't any more than 10 - 30 thousand years old. Practical facts.

Man's primary means of survival is reason. Reason. It's the one tool that comes to us naturally. How can abandoning it be a necessity? How could you abandon your judgement to another? Why would you?

We all have faith...believeing in the big bang is to have faith in it

How is believeing in God abandoning Reason? I take a look at everything around me. From the complexity of the human mind to a blade of grass. There are millions of things in between, marvels each one of them.

The need to create, to be able to imagine grand things. The skills that are possessed in each of us. The billions of individual life is astounding.

I'm not abandoning Reason, I am accepting reason, in my ees and heart anyway

As for stigmata...I don't

 

for you to make me come out and look in for a moment is great and I thank you

Hey you're very welcome.
But hold on to your hat because I'm going to make you really really work now.

Wind is predictiable? LOL! Since when
Since we've had weather stations that communicate with one another, satalites to observe the complete picture and computers with sufficient processing power to compute the data.

Practically, the only thing that can be computed with any reasonable accuracy are general trends over a five day period. At this particular point in time, we don't have the capacity to predict that a gust will occur right........ NOW.

But it is not impossible to do so - just extremely costly and unnecessary at the moment. The wind isn't random. It doesn't gust for the heck of it. There are certain conditions that govern it.

I thought I had given reasonable explanation for the existence of wind. You presented observations (leaves being tossed about, dust whipping about, hair being mussed up). I presented theory that fits those observations (circulation of warm and cool air regions). This theory can be confirmed experimentally. It can be confirmed through predictions.

Could the wind actually be invisible pink unicorns rushing about? Perhaps its angels in the clouds blowing with all their might? Might it be caused by a special radioactive element known as Windonium, which lies deep inside the planets core?

Well - I suppose, were it not that the circulation of air theory better describes the situation at hand.

Unless you have a theory that bests my circulation of regions of air, that fits the data at hand and provides better predictability - then I think it's safe to say we have a working explaination for what wind is.

Comparing the wind to God just because both are unseen is not justifiable. I don't see leprechauns and I don't see God. Does this invalidate God's existence? Does it justify the existence of leprechauns?

We exist, therefore there is a God? Is that your working model?

But before we touch on that...
In fact evidence suggests that the Earth itself isn't any more than 10 - 30 thousand years old. Practical facts.

Saying the world is 30k years old has all the scientific validity of stating the moon is made of cheese.
What evidence? What facts?
Please post proof or retract.