Evidence for God from Science

Jesus was often inappropriate by other people's standards.

He touched lepers, messed up the marketplace, didnt bother going to see his sick friend straight away, expecting people to love him more than their own family...

I was thinking today that what if an inappropriate response is, at times, the best response.

What if we are so brainwashed with what is socially acceptable that we dont even consider rocking the boat at times when we should. What if our silence is causing more misery than our inappropriate opinions. Even if it costs us greatly.

Nessa wrote:Jesus was often inappropriate by other people's standards.

He touched lepers, messed up the marketplace, didnt bother going to see his sick friend straight away, expecting people to love him more than their own family...

I was thinking today that what if an inappropriate response is, at times, the best response.

What if we are so brainwashed with what is socially acceptable that we dont even consider rocking the boat at times when we should. What if our silence is causing more misery than our inappropriate opinions. Even if it costs us greatly.

I agree. And, I'm glad that I have no problem being extremely inappropriate, when necessary.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:Jesus was often inappropriate by other people's standards.

He touched lepers, messed up the marketplace, didnt bother going to see his sick friend straight away, expecting people to love him more than their own family...

I was thinking today that what if an inappropriate response is, at times, the best response.

What if we are so brainwashed with what is socially acceptable that we dont even consider rocking the boat at times when we should. What if our silence is causing more misery than our inappropriate opinions. Even if it costs us greatly.

I agree. And, I'm glad that I have no problem being extremely inappropriate, when necessary.

Some people have said I sometimes go over the cliff with "inappropriate" comments. Are you enorouging RickD and myself to say inappropriate stuff more of the time? Sure these new brainwaves aren't just a menopausal thing?

Speaking of which, if Jesus can touch lepers, then does that mean it's alright to touch my wife when she bleeds?

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:Jesus was often inappropriate by other people's standards.

He touched lepers, messed up the marketplace, didnt bother going to see his sick friend straight away, expecting people to love him more than their own family...

I was thinking today that what if an inappropriate response is, at times, the best response.

What if we are so brainwashed with what is socially acceptable that we dont even consider rocking the boat at times when we should. What if our silence is causing more misery than our inappropriate opinions. Even if it costs us greatly.

Speaking of which, if Jesus can touch lepers, then does that mean it's alright to touch my wife when she bleeds?

Of course you can.....

just dont shake my hand afterwards

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:Jesus was often inappropriate by other people's standards.

He touched lepers, messed up the marketplace, didnt bother going to see his sick friend straight away, expecting people to love him more than their own family...

I was thinking today that what if an inappropriate response is, at times, the best response.

What if we are so brainwashed with what is socially acceptable that we dont even consider rocking the boat at times when we should. What if our silence is causing more misery than our inappropriate opinions. Even if it costs us greatly.

Speaking of which, if Jesus can touch lepers, then does that mean it's alright to touch my wife when she bleeds?

Of course you can.....

just dont shake my hand afterwards

Umm, you didn't think I meant touch her... erm, in that spot did you? Now, that's just inappropriate Nessa!

I was meaning a general coming into contact with like in Leviticus 15:19 where it says, "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening."

Philip wrote:

oh lets not pretend there arent grosser things in the bible

Jesus would be the furthest thing from a "social justice warrior" that we have now.
Jesus WANTED discussion and He WANTED the opposing view and WANTED free speech, dissenting speech even.
He even took matters into His own hands, physically, if needed, BUT never returned WORDS with physical violence.
See, He didn't allow OTHERS to dictate to Him what He could or couldn't say.
Free will means that people MUST be allowed to choose, regardless of what that choice may be.
He hung out with the outcast to SAVE them, not to accept them as they were ( though He did accept them as people).
He pointed out what was wrong and why and was clear even if it hurt peoples feelings, sometimes on purpose to hurt people's feelings ( The pearls before swine, the table scraps comments).
An adulteress was called just that, a thief was called just that, people that were doing wrongs things were called on them.
Jesus was no compromising or appropriate in modern terms.

I see a little irony when certain non-Christians portray "God" as sitting above us, demanding we bow the knee or else.

The picture that Christian Theism sets up of God is one who gives liberty to all to carry out good or evil even unto the most extreme ends. Such is how much God values our moral choosing, to follow love or hate, to the point people then question God's goodness when the most terrible evils are allowed -- generally perpetrated by humanity's greed and selfish desires.

Thankfully, there are limits and boundaries that are in place to evil i.e., physical death. Once we die, no longer can we be physically pained and harmed. In life even, we can gain some relief in dreams, in our minds which can be quite powerful. Nonetheless, evil cannot be perpetrated against us and others eternally, there are limits in place and it is finite and but for a time. It is tolerated because God desires the hearts of humanity, for all to love and love back, rather than beings who are borg-like robots.

And, it is interesting that when Christ entered the world, He didn't minister to those who were powerful and wealthy. It wasn't the righteous religious orders of the day that He backed. Rather, Christ went to sick, the lepers, prostitutes, weak and powerless. Those who understood their sin and that they were sinners. (Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31-32) Those who likely suffered the most evils in life and were considered social outcasts. If we come to Christ, then He promises us rest. Such can be had in this life in ways many don't understand, and will be had more fully in the next life when we wake up with Christ by our side.

The question is whether we trust what this person Christ said 2000 years ago to be true? I do. It is hard to deny the wisdom He spoke, and so much rings of goodness and truth. It ought to be true even if it is not, although I am certain it is true.

Non-Christians, skeptics and atheists create the God they can disprove, they create the God they can renounce and not believe in.
I have yet to read one serious argument against the Classical Theist Christian God.

The thing is, in order to make a good attempt at refuting your beliefs I'd have to study theology, the Bible, Biblical history, the history of world religions, and probably classical philosophy.

I'm not going to do all that in order to try and refute an idea that I find ridiculous on its face. Neither will you, which is why you know don't know nearly as much about all of the religions that you reject as you do about the one you accept.

edwardmurphy wrote:The thing is, in order to make a good attempt at refuting your beliefs I'd have to study theology, the Bible, Biblical history, the history of world religions, and probably classical philosophy.

I'm not going to do all that in order to try and refute an idea that I find ridiculous on its face. Neither will you, which is why you know don't know nearly as much about all of the religions that you reject as you do about the one you accept.

Good point Ed. You wouldn't want to actually know something about something before you find it ridiculous.

You're deliberately missing my point. Or maybe you just can't imagine my position. I don't know.

I understand the concept of gods. I've studied history. I've been to church. I married a Comparative Religion major (No worries, she makes a good living anyway). I dated a Pastor's daughter for several years and was, for a thankfully short stretch, his personal project. I know as much as I need to know to make an informed decision for myself.

The standard challenge from Christians - which is what I was responding to - is that one cannot reasonably reject their god (note that it only applies to their god) without spending years learning everything there is to know about the Christianity. That's silly.

edwardmurphy wrote:The thing is, in order to make a good attempt at refuting your beliefs I'd have to study theology, the Bible, Biblical history, the history of world religions, and probably classical philosophy.

I'm not going to do all that in order to try and refute an idea that I find ridiculous on its face. Neither will you, which is why you know don't know nearly as much about all of the religions that you reject as you do about the one you accept.

Of course it is virtually impossible to know every detail of every other religion.
That is why I am not on a Buddhist website refuting them ( even though I was very much into Zen Buddhism for awhile) or on a Jewish website refuting Judaism ( even though I have some experience with Judaism at the academic level) or on a Muslim website refuting Islam or on a Wiccan website or on a Taoist website and so forth and so forth.

I, like most here, defend OUR faith and like many here, I have LOTS of experience and education in OUR faith.
And yes, apologists of a faith SHOULD have detailed knowledge of their faith like history and philosophy and theology and so forth, just as apologist of Islam, and Judaism and Buddhism and so forth, do.


Yet, here you are Ed, self-admitting incomplete knowledge of Christianity on a Christian website that, in your words has "an idea that I find ridiculous on its face", trying to refute Christianity ( something you admit you have incomplete knowledge of).

Why are you hear dude?

edwardmurphy wrote:You're deliberately missing my point. Or maybe you just can't imagine my position. I don't know.

I understand the concept of gods. I've studied history. I've been to church. I married a Comparative Religion major (No worries, she makes a good living anyway). I dated a Pastor's daughter for several years and was, for a thankfully short stretch, his personal project. I know as much as I need to know to make an informed decision for myself.

The standard challenge from Christians - which is what I was responding to - is that one cannot reasonably reject their god (note that it only applies to their god) without spending years learning everything there is to know about the Christianity. That's silly.

Yeah, because God, if He exists in the Christian context ( classical theist god), would be easy to understand !
How's advance quantum mechanics working out for you Ed, figured that out yet? because, since God is the creator and sustainer of the universe and you can figure Him out that easy then a BUY PRODUCT of that universe will be no problem !