rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
> I believe in God because he answers prayers. [MERRILL]
I'd like to analyze this statement in terms of the concepts I've been
referring to, the idea that belief in god stems from an assumption of
the existence of god first and analysis after. The above is a prime
example. It is equivalent to saying "I believe in the Tooth Fairy because
the Tooth Fairy brings me money when I leave teeth under my pillow."
If you already believe that the Tooth Fairy exists, then it is "clear"
that the Tooth Fairy is the cause of the appearance of the money. Money
appeared under my pillow, I *believe* that a Tooth Fairy exists who performs
this function, therefore the Tooth Fairy did it.
This analysis can be applied similarly to belief in god. Prayers are
"answered", god (according to my beliefs) answers prayers, therefore god
exists. Statistically, one can look at the soldiers who nearly died in
combat whose "prayers were answered", and we can hear their testimonies.
Unfortunately, we can never hear testimony from those soldiers whose prayers
were NOT answered, and some may not even consider it when evaluating the
large number of positive testimonies, thus concluding "See? There is a god."
--
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlrlarryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (02/15/85)
Well, since everyone is answering this question publicly I will too. I already sent my answer in via mail. There is only one reason and ONE REASON ONLY to believe in Jesus. I have met Him and talked to Him and experienced HIM in my life. Each person must have this experience for themselves to become a christian and to believe. Now obviously I had to have some amount of faith to seek to meet Him. Just like one would if you have heard about President Reagan or Jeff Sargeant or Rich Rosen. I would set off on my journey to meet them based on faith. When I would finally meet them (if they really existed) then I would KNOW them. Everything else outside of experiential knowledge is falling short of a true relationship with God and obviously will not stand up to attack. Do you assume that your mother exists therefore her existance is based on your assumption? No, she exists, period. How do you know that? karen
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/18/85)
I know Jesus too. He lives downstairs and steals cars. Oh, *that* Jesus! Did he give you the Massachusetts Megabucks number? Mikki Barry
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/18/85)
In article <329@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: > There is only one reason and ONE REASON ONLY to believe in Jesus. > > I have met Him and talked to Him and experienced HIM in my life. This is one of the dishonest aspects of born-agains that I revile. Because inevitably they are talking either allegory or fantasy. Not real life "here's my friend JC, shake hands with him" like we would introduce anyone else we know. They are talking more like we would dream of meeting the Wizard of Oz, or a giant invisible rabbit named Harvey. Or they are speaking of day to day occurrences we all already have: they just interpret them differently. > Each person must have this experience for themselves to become a > christian and to believe. Now obviously I had to have some amount > of faith to seek to meet Him. Not obvious to me at all. Why is it obvious to you? Because its a dogma? > Just like one would if you have heard about President Reagan or > Jeff Sargeant or Rich Rosen. I would set off on my journey to meet > them based on faith. When I would finally meet them (if they really > existed) then I would KNOW them. If any one of them (or anyone else) sought me out, or if I happened to introduce myself to them by accident (sitting next to them on a bus...) then I would get to know them just as well as if I hunted them down. So why should I have to look for JC to get to know him? Unlike we mortals, he's supposed to multitask sufficiently that opportunity is no problem for him. > Everything else outside of experiential knowledge is falling short > of a true relationship with God and obviously will not stand up to > attack. Fine by me. But it has to be an experience that anyone can share. Don't give me any BS about having to be equally deluded to see your giant rabbit. Sure, other believers can share it with you. Let's see if you truely experience the same thing. You can both dictate what JC is saying at the same time. Or ask him to carry a message between the two of you. I'll pick the message. By the way, if you wish to rebut this, keep in mind my first paragraph above. > Do you assume that your mother exists therefore her existance is > based on your assumption? No, she exists, period. How do you > know that? I "know" who my mother is because I was told so at an early age. So do many adoptees. So do may religious believers "know" their god. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/19/85)
> From larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Gardner) Fri Feb 15 15:42:33 1985 > There is only one reason and ONE REASON ONLY to believe in Jesus. > > I have met Him and talked to Him and experienced HIM in my life. > Each person must have this experience for themselves to become a > christian and to believe. Aargh! I cannot possibly express how frustrated I get when I see people spouting nonsense that I had already seen through at age 12. Karen, as Charles Stanley is so fond of saying, listen to me now: A Hindu would say exactly the same thing about Krishna. Members of all religions have fundamentally similar mystical experiences, and among the most common is that of presence or companionship of a deity. When I was a Christian, I "knew Christ personally", conversed with him, prayed to him, enjoyed his splendour. However, because I was not totally uncritical of mystical experience, I came to realize that I would have similar experiences in most any other religion, but I would call it by the name "Krishna" if I were Hindu, or attribute it to the spirit of some prophet if I were Jewish, or call it a direct experience of Buddha-nature if I were Buddhist, etc. Subsequent experience in other religions has shown that I was correct. Mystical experience of the sort you describe is no sort of proof of any literal interpretation of any religion. All it does is show the potency of the symbols employed, and all religions are full of potent symbols. Even silly religions like Mormonism usually have some. However, perhaps we can come to agreement at least on this: Anyone who does not believe that Jesus exists as a potent symbol is wrong. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (02/21/85)
> Karen, as Charles Stanley is so fond of saying, listen to me now: A Hindu > would say exactly the same thing about Krishna. Members of all religions > have fundamentally similar mystical experiences, and among the most common > is that of presence or companionship of a deity. When I was a Christian, I > "knew Christ personally", conversed with him, prayed to him, enjoyed his > splendour. However, because I was not totally uncritical of mystical > experience, I came to realize that I would have similar experiences in most > any other religion, but I would call it by the name "Krishna" if I were > Hindu, or attribute it to the spirit of some prophet if I were Jewish, or > call it a direct experience of Buddha-nature if I were Buddhist, etc. > Subsequent experience in other religions has shown that I was correct. One question. Which Jewish prophet would I be talking to? I've been Jewish a long time and never spoken to anyone ( except humans ). Eliyahu Teitz.