Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

pgwenthold said:
The biggest problem with determining whether we have free will or not is, how could you tell?

How can you tell the difference between actual free will and apparent free will? Kind of by definition, apparent free will looks like free will, even if it isn't.

You can't determine free will by actions. And heck, free will does not even mean the ability to make decisions. Watch a robot, it constantly makes decisions. How can you tell that those decisions are programmed or not just by watching? You certainly can't. And when it comes to your own decisions, how can you tell whether they are really free? You can feel like you have a choice, but in the end, whatever you choose, was there really an option to choose? How can you tell?

I would never say we don't have free will, but I can also confidently say we don't and can't know if we do. So any attempt to use free will to try to explain something is ultimately lacks a foundation.

"Why does God allow evil?"
"Because we have free will."
"How do you know we have free will?"
"Because if we didn't, then God would be bad for allowing evil. Since God is good, we must have free will...."
Click to expand...
You determine it by logic. How would free will even work? If your genes (or even soul) and the environment turn you into a serial killer, how could you ever choose not to become a serial killer? Those with the will to resist didn't tap into some "super will", the genes and the environment gave them that will. And even if they tapped into some "super will", where did that come from? That's right, genes and environment. But maybe some people have a "super super will"? And where did that come from?
 
Poem said:
Yes, that is a misreading. The OP and other issues (I posted on Romans 9), in my opinion, remain good reasons to doubt.

I'm jut not as decided and anti as many on here are. Yours is quite a moderate position too.
Click to expand...
Not really. The bible being anything approaching the word of god is mighty low on my list of likelihoods.

What I am sympathetic to is feeling the touch of god, or being in a state of grace or however you want to say it. Been there, felt that. Probably just a release of seratonin or whichever chemical that does that, but I am profoundly interested in how others interpret that state.
 
Thermal said:
Not really. The bible being anything approaching the word of god is mighty low on my list of likelihoods.
Click to expand...
Okay.
Thermal said:
What I am sympathetic to is feeling the touch of god, or being in a state of grace or however you want to say it. Been there, felt that. Probably just a release of seratonin or whichever chemical that does that, but I am profoundly interested in how others interpret that state.
Click to expand...
Hmm...not sure I have ever felt that. Maybe when listening to Sibelius's 7th Symphony.
 
Poem said:
Yes, that is a misreading. The OP and other issues (I posted on Romans 9), in my opinion, remain good reasons to doubt.

I'm jut not as decided and anti as many on here are. Yours is quite a moderate position too.
Click to expand...
Do you not find the fact that the various Christian religions believe in different things a reason to doubt that any one of them has the truth?
 
Poem said:
Okay.

Hmm...not sure I have ever felt that. Maybe when listening to Sibelius's 7th Symphony.
Click to expand...
I used to be a bit of an adrenaline junkie, and you popped in and out of that state with fair regularity. They say <whatever activity> is better than sex, and there's truth to that. And I'm not talking about the comparatively mild 'runner's high'. It's an all-encompassing thing that happens after the adrenaline part (that's just called being in the zone). But all a little OT.
 
Thermal said:
I used to be a bit of an adrenaline junkie, and you popped in and out of that state with fair regularity. They say <whatever activity> is better than sex, and there's truth to that. And I'm not talking about the comparatively mild 'runner's high'. It's an all-encompassing thing that happens after the adrenaline part (that's just called being in the zone). But all a little OT.
Click to expand...
Cool. I remember the first time zip lining down 500 feet from a cliff. I remember going from being terrified, almost frozen in fear to being weightless and exhilarated in a fraction of a second. Most memorable second of my life. Felt similarly, when bungee jumping. But nothing beats the first time.

I get that we can have an exhilarating feeling. My issue is the attribution. It's like when people feel sick and then say things like it was food poisoning or give a reason for it. When the fact is they don't know. And they will almost certainly never know.
I grew up with my parents saying the reason we caught a cold in the winter time was because of the cold. In fact, that's why we call it that. But we know that's not the reason.

As human beings, we need to stop doing this and admit we don't know when we don't.
 
acbytesla said:
Cool. I remember the first time zip lining down 500 feet from a cliff. I remember going from being terrified, almost frozen in fear to being weightless and exhilarated in a fraction of a second. Most memorable second of my life. Felt similarly, when bungee jumping. But nothing beats the first time.
Click to expand...
Right. That's the fleeting primary version, like a sneak peak. The heavy duty one comes after the activity is over. Takes a while of doing it over and over before you hit it. It's the kind of thing you can totally understand someone founding a religion over.

Best guess it is some kind of residual chemical thing that doesn't kick in till after the adrenaline backs off, but leaves you with an intense euphoria and feels like god parted the clouds and asked if it was good for you.
acbytesla said:
I get that we can have an exhilarating feeling. My issue is the attribution. It's like when people feel sick and then say things like it was food poisoning or give a reason for it. When the fact is they don't know. And they will almost certainly never know.
I grew up with my parents saying the reason we caught a cold in the winter time was because of the cold. In fact, that's why we call it that. But we know that's not the reason.

As human beings, we need to stop doing this and admit we don't know when we don't.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean about learning how others interpret it, and why I am sympathetic to them. While they are not likely to convince me that the Universal Creator of all time and space is concerned about me mixing fibers in my clothes, I get where they are coming from and remain interested in where they took it.
 
Darat said:
We can create that “one with the all” with a push of a button : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Click to expand...
Heard about that one, yeah. The guy running it took a lot of criticism for his methodology. One of the basic requirements for a scientific finding is replication, and only one other group managed to replicate similar results, all others failed. So 'push-of-the-button' still seems a bit of a stretch.
 
Thermal said:
Right. That's the fleeting primary version, like a sneak peak. The heavy duty one comes after the activity is over. Takes a while of doing it over and over before you hit it. It's the kind of thing you can totally understand someone founding a religion over.

Best guess it is some kind of residual chemical thing that doesn't kick in till after the adrenaline backs off, but leaves you with an intense euphoria and feels like god parted the clouds and asked if it was good for you.

That's what I mean about learning how others interpret it, and why I am sympathetic to them. While they are not likely to convince me that the Universal Creator of all time and space is concerned about me mixing fibers in my clothes,
I get where they are coming from and remain interested in where they took it.
Click to expand...
I do too.

But I am totally dIsinterested where they take it. Especially when it is used to make unsupported claims. Or when they are contradicted by reality and science. Or when it is used to tell the rest of us how we should be living our lives. It is this moment, when I discard the empathy and go to war.
 
acbytesla said:
I do too.

But I am totally dIsinterested where they take it. Especially when it is used to make unsupported claims. Or when they are contradicted by reality and science. Or when it is used to tell the rest of us how we should be living our lives. It is this moment, when I discard the empathy and go to war.
Click to expand...
Agreed, except that I *am* interested in where they take it. Do they dedicate their lives in the service of good? If they get it from, say, transcendental meditation, to they spend their time trying to bring that to others? Do they try to hoard it and weild power over others, thinking themselves special or favored? I suspect we both hate that last with no apologies.
 
Thermal said:
Agreed, except that I *am* interested in where they take it. Do they dedicate their lives in the service of good? If they get it from, say, transcendental meditation, to they spend their time trying to bring that to others? Do they try to hoard it and weild power over others, thinking themselves special or favored? I suspect we both hate that last with no apologies.
Click to expand...
I am only interested in as much as it concerns me. As I said, it's the attribution that is troubling. Even seemingly benign mis-attributions can have negative consequences. Beliefs inform actions.
 
Poem said:
My understanding is that this is an issue of focus regarding attaining righteousness . As Paul said in Romans 10:3,4 regarding the Israelites:

Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

So it would appear that the law still holds (at least the moral law rather than the ceremonial?), but nobody will / is capable of keeping it through their own efforts; rather, it is attained through belief in Christ - because if your focus is on Christ, you will be led by him in a moral sense.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Well, it's an odd way of stating it. I don't think my church would be fundamentally in disagreement with it though.
Poem said:
You have made this point a number of times (which is fine), but if the scientific community also does not have a unified stance on evolution (they don't), then is what you are saying significant?
Click to expand...
Poem, get this into your head: Every serious biologist accepts the reality of evolution. Every. Single. One. The ones that don't are creationists, and not biologists. There may be minor disagreements on specific details of the hows and whys, but no serious biologist doubts it. There is a unified stance on evolution in the scientific community - that it is the only way to consistently explain the observations.
Darat said:
Do you not find the fact that the various Christian religions believe in different things a reason to doubt that any one of them has the truth?
Click to expand...
This is in fact one of the primary reasons I left the church.
 
arthwollipot said:
Poem, get this into your head: Every serious biologist accepts the reality of evolution. Every. Single. One. The ones that don't are creationists, and not biologists. There may be minor disagreements on specific details of the hows and whys, but no serious biologist doubts it. There is a unified stance on evolution in the scientific community - that it is the only way to consistently explain the observations.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are disagreements over some of the mechanics of evolution. But not the idea that organisms evolve from generation to generation. Or that populations of species evolve based on environmental conditions.
Darat said:
Do you not find the fact that the various Christian religions believe in different things a reason to doubt that any one of them has the truth?
Click to expand...
arthwollipot said:
This is in fact one of the primary reasons I left the church.
Click to expand...
Really? It seems as if that is a silly reason....unless it's the idea that if it truly was the word of god, there wouldn't be so many versions.

From my perspective, there is really one good reason to believe anything. That is if it is demonstrable and supported by evidence.
 
Last edited:
Ryan O'Dine said:
I'm too lazy to look for something later than 2014, but...

"As of 2014, nearly all (around 98%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity."
Click to expand...
Yeah, the poster can claim to not be Christian or Creationist, but this is all straight out of the creationist handbook.

Just wait for the list of 500 scientists who dispute evolution (which contains such high profile scientists as some TV weathermen and some engineers)

When fossils at the top of Mt Everest are brought up, you know it's coming from AiG.

As they say, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." For sure, creationists...
 
acbytesla said:
Really? It seems as if that is a silly reason....unless it's the idea that if it truly was the word of god, there wouldn't be so many versions.
Click to expand...
What's more likely - that one version of Christianity is right and 39,999 versions are wrong, or that 40,000 versions are wrong?

That's not the only reason I left the church though. The other was the realisation that no process in the universe required the existence of a deity in order to proceed. God was redundant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom