• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Accepting Jesus will save your soul...

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Me thinks you need to read up on the character of Medieval philosophy a little more.

I bet you can't cite a single combination of passages that is a distinct argument in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
 

Alwar

The Architect
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
922
MBTI Type
INTP
Many of the pre-Enlightenment intellectuals were Monks or Priests, probably because they were the only ones with the time to think. Even for awhile afterward it seems. The founder of Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a priest for example.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx

Make an argument for why these proofs should be read as as attempts to establish the conclusion that the Christian God exists and not the conclusion that God exists.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.


There is nothing in here that even alludes to the proof of the existence of the Christian God. In fact the term is not used at all.





Yes and no technically. Much of what we know from Antiquity is because of Medieval scribes helped preserved the manuscripts. Interestingly this even included the ant-Christian polemics of Julian the Apostate.

Is there any reason to suppose that the work of these scribes is any more accurate than mere hearsay?
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
All discussions out to try and prove or disprove all run down on. "Well, it's called 'believing' for a reason!" Or some other spin on 'faith'.

It's not important to prove or disprove the existance of God. As it is futile.

What is interesting is trying to find out why some people do believe, and why others do not.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
Methinks that guy needed a slap in the face. Or at least, I'd slap him if that was my tip. :tongue:
 

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
Which itself is built upon Christian values.
Middle ages is the product of Christian values.
Western culture is the product of the decline of the Christian values.
It is called the New Age.
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
Religion and church is everywhere... The message of heaven or hell is everywhere. If people want to know more and pursue a faith, there's always churches within walking distance or Bibles at any bookstore. Evangelism should start with a strong concern and compassion for others and a desire to learn more about the lives of those around you. It should be a personal thing, building bonds and friendships and then influencing "like Christ". Trying to shove a doctrine down someone's throat is such a put off and only makes religious people look cocky and bad. I have nothing but disdain towards those folks.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Yeah and what force helped preserved the Classical heritage, passed it onto new cultures; and also perfected its intellectual heritage via thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas?

The notion of Greece and Rome being the foundation of Western civilization is itself a Christian concept derived from the early Medieval period; particularly the Holy Roman Empire.

So dance around it as much as you like.

I'll grant you that several intellectual elements were preserved by the Catholic Church, and that they were used to support Christian concepts. However, I wouldn't necessarily say that everything that Catholics came up with were by definition Christian concepts. A Christian doing or saying something doesn't automatically make everything they did or said Christian in nature, AFAIK.

You see, the Catholic church was (and is) a huge body, and a lot of different people had their interests represented in it. It was more like a unofficial government with a state religion that it used to create cohesion/unity, rather than just a religion. After the fall of the Roman Empire, I imagine that the more intellectual people in it realized that they were only body left with enough power to preserve anything of what was left, and wisely chose to do so. There was a lot going on in there that had nothing to do with religion directly.

And we know that the Catholic church has been mixed up with politics, the economy, ancient academia, and more. We do owe the Catholic church a lot of credit, but you can't just say that everything the Church did was solely inspired by their being Christian. The Church was largely influenced by Greco-Roman traditions in addition to (and in some ways, perhaps more than) it's central doctrine.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Many of the pre-Enlightenment intellectuals were Monks or Priests, probably because they were the only ones with the time to think. Even for awhile afterward it seems. The founder of Genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a priest for example.

And Erasmus, a Dutch Rennaissance Humanist, was a Catholic Christian theologian and a Dominican monk and priest.

He wrote and lectured extensively across Europe in the fifteenth century and was immensely popular.

And Erasmus remains popular today with a much sought after student exchange programme, called the Erasmus Programme.

But what is most interesting is that the Catholic Church accepted his humanist writing and teaching.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
... The tip thing is pretty horrible.

Yeah, that part is pretty lame -- witnessing to your waiter at his expense, so to speak. It's not a lot different than dumping tracts and no candy into the bags of kids who come to your door at Halloween. I think sensitive proselytizers would understand to do both, if they're going to distribute tracts at all; this way, it feels like total cluelessness in regards to the needs and perceptions of others.

You have to see it from his perspective, he meant well, he honestly thinks he's doing a good deed here...

Actually I think the RUDEST part was when he said accepting Jesus would save her soul, because it implies that her soul needs saving in the first place, it implies that he thinks there is something wrong with you.

Reference your first comment. It is more loving to suggest someone needs their soul saved and pretty hateful to avoid saying it if you think they truly will burn for eternity in hell.

Of course, if you're someone who doesn't believe in their religion, it does come off as mighty offensive... that someone thinks that, without talking to others, they have a handle on their personality morality and ethics enough to damn them to hell.

We find such behavior unacceptable because of the values that we hold to. The values I have in mind are those that are typically associated with the civilized Western culture. We tend to think that most people deserve the basic right to personal space, freedom of thought and common courtesy. In other words, it seems intuitively obvious to us that any person has a right to go about his or her own business without random intrusions. We also tend to think that what they believe regarding their philosophy on life and the after-life should be up to them, we are not in the position to force our views onto them. In addition to that we assume that most people are decent enough to have our basic respect. This means that we certainly are not going to tell them that they are reprobates deserving eternal damnation if they don't look at life our way.

What's interesting is that I know a lot of Christians who are both -- they hold the fundamentalist view here about what "gets you into heaven" and that everyone is automatically a sinner, etc., but especially in this area it's considered rude by many to interfere or be publicly critical of others in the context described. (i.e., within the right arena, one can express such views openly, and maybe within close family under certain context). I have had pastors from my mom's church write me hateful letters and while many Christians I know around here probably agreed with the contents, they all stated it was extremely inappropriate contextually for me to receive this letters from these guys. There really is a sense of propriety in some religious circles about when and how beliefs can be openly discussed, regardless of the stance held.

I always find it interesting hearing about how in India there are records of an Isha Nath who would seem to correspond with Jesus: white guy, came from middle east, "the missing years".

I'm sure you're right. (Let me go check Snopes!)

Make an argument for why these proofs should be read as as attempts to establish the conclusion that the Christian God exists and not the conclusion that God exists.

Thank you, that's exactly right.

(Sort of like ID assuming blithely that if there was a designer, it was in fact the Christian God and not some other variation.)
 

Nonsensical

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,006
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7
I think it is completely wrong. I get especially mad when I hear about how many Hindus are converting to Christianity over in India because of the pushy Christian missionaries.

I hate it. I find people who are over expressive of their religion so much that they think it is the ONLY way and that they should try to convert everybody else to think and worship the same exact way is enraging.

My little personal opinion on faith- it's personal. Your religion shouldn't be external, it is within you. Your religion and faith isn't what creeds you follow and what organized body you pray with, it's your own unique relationship with god, or none at all. There is not right or wrong way, it is simply believing in it or not. Religion has turned into such a social occasion that people aren't even spiritual anymore. You can't get high in consciousness by going to mass every Sunday and leaving it at that...you need to seek the Truth withing yourself. We've lost the practical side of religion. It's like we're all little hypocrites. Don't say it and think it, do it and feel it. This is all considering you have faith at all, though.

That's my little opinion.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I'm with Peguy on this one, unsurprisingly. Western civilization at this point has more Christian influence than Greco-Roman influence. Look at Christian values and Roman values. Christian: humility, love, serving; Ancient Rome: manliness, valor, strength (warriors). Also, monotheism has virtually wiped out polytheism, thanks in large part to Christianity. On top of that, Christianity eventually became a great official religion in Rome (Constantine). And Christianity played a huge part in the colonization and civilization of the Americas.

As for Aquinas, I don't think his exclusive Christianity is debatable. Look at his work concerning toleration. He basically says it's ok to poke former christians until they re-accept the faith. That being said, it's important to remember that the Christian God is the same as the God of Judaism and Islam, so for him to explicitly tell us that he is writing about the Christian God would be a little redundant for his day. Especially since he was a Dominican. What other God would he be trying to prove exists?
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Oh and about the topic...I think that guy is ridiculous. I believe in preaching and rigorous apologetics, but not proselytizing.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Especially since he was a Dominican. What other God would he be trying to prove exists?

I think we're saying that the argument inherently says nothing about what sort of God this is.

Maybe AQUINAS is thinking in terms of the Christian God... but the argument itself does not (nor can it) specific the doctrine of the God in question, it merely is discussing a generic "first cause" god. So the argument proves nothing about the doctrinal Christian god at all, it's merely assessing a generic god, and it's a logical fallacy to not note that.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Aquinas' writing also encompasses thoughts on angels, the nature of man, the Sacraments, divine government, relations to other religions and heritics, virtues, vices, and Christ himself. All part of the Summa. The Five Ways are just a part of his genius, and is definitely aimed at Christian God, which again is the same generic God as Islam and Judaism, with added emphasis on love and the Trinity as a way of understanding, which I believe he also writes about.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
I think it is completely wrong. I get especially mad when I hear about how many Hindus are converting to Christianity over in India because of the pushy Christian missionaries.

Why? Apparently, those Hindus found something they liked better, just as you have found something you like better than Christianity.

Incidentally, the only people who believe that Hindus are converting en masse to Christianity are Hindu nationalists, who are persecuting Christians and trying to outlaw proselytization-and THAT is something that makes ME "especially mad."

Btw, I'm an agnostic.

Edit: Oh, and that guy who left that tip is a huge dick; I would have more tolerance for him if he had left the pamphlet in addition to money, but I think it was inappropriate in any case.
 
Last edited:
Top