Trav,

With refence to your earlier comment:

"However, the point is Zeus makes more sense of reason than naturalism does. If Zeus exists, and Zeus created us, and therefore if objective truth exists, it makes perfect sense that I could have some trust in my own thought processes and in my own ability to assess truth claims. " - Travates (ahem)

Cheers,

Oly.

You've raised an interesting point Oly- that is, single arguments alone will rarely attempt to justify any particular God. In the instance of reason for example, the Christian God and Zeus may or may not have some similar characteristics, so it might be perfectly ok to use the same argument. But, the case for Christianity is cumulative, as is the case for anything.

I assume no one came into the world, claiming to be Zeus's son, leaving behind solid historical evidence confirming all the events surrounding his miraculous signs, as Christ did with the resurrection.

Shadow, two questions:

Are you claiming not to have any bias?

Why do you say my comment regarding monkeys undercuts my own argument? I hold that we are not monkeys at all, in the sense that we don’t share any common ancestry with apes.

Bushbasher,
Stephan Cheleda challenges us to reassess our self perceptions, saying, “The notions we hold about creation or evolution are some of those important perceptions.” I could agree with this (though disagreeing with his overall viewpoint).

When I asked are we trusting the musings of a brute monkey, or if our thoughts were just fortuitous chemical reactions (implying thoughts we merely unreasoned impulses), I didn’t think that such questions would be unanswerable for atheists. I wanted to stimulate discussion, and at least try and put atheists on the back foot. Creationists took some unwarranted snipes in Stephan’s article and in earlier parts of this discussion, so I aimed to defend that position and demonstrate that this debate isn’t a one way street.

Possibly my questions were a bit deep. Perhaps Nils is right by suggesting that we should just go away and read a book, rather than try and sought out anything here in 350 words or less. But deep does not make it invalid.

You argue that “we see science work everyday, with everything we do.” Science does work well in many areas within certain parameters. However, the success of science is dependent on correct philosophical underpinnings. Are you presuming that science supports evolution? Many scientists these days do not.

How can I be confident that my thinking about God is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable? Or why is following the God of the bible not an arbitrary choice?

These too, are deep and multi-faceted questions. Many books have been written in different domains of study addressing them. However, my main focus touching on the current article is in the area of science and the creation/evolution debate. In earlier posts I have already posited some preliminary argument.

OUG,

The NIV (New International Version) can be the “new-age version” for you. It’s not abbreviated though.

There is a big difference between sons of men – denoting mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12, etc.); and Son of Man - used forty-three times in the NT as a distinctive title of the Savior and twice in the OT (Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13).

Interpreting “sons of man” for all humankind is consistent with biblical usage (KJV and NIV!) and the inference of teacher/student or shepherd/sheep is your own.

The scribes were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ miracles and direct beneficiaries of his teaching, and still did not believe.

The “unforgiveable sin” is not a matter of degree, although things appear to go worse for hypocrites or believers who turn away; believers who “do good” are rewarded – no dispute here.

The Gospel of Mark is a roaring good read, and gathers momentum from this point. In the end, it is the trumped-up charge of blasphemy (isn’t that what we started with here?) that they crucify him for. So the scribes definitely understood references to the prophets – it is used at the trial.

The reaction of the scribes is critical to Jesus’ mission, for:

1) The prophecies are brought to bear, evidence that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promises.

2) As a result, Jesus is hated, rejected and killed for his claims. If he was a liar – the scribes were righteous men, upholding the law. If he was a lunatic, the penalty was harsh and bloody. If he was telling the truth, then the evidence should point to that, and the scribes are the worst of hypocrites: executing both an innocent man and the Son of God.

Teaching aid, yes, if Jesus was a mere teacher, but that would also make him a liar and/or a lunatic. The reaction of the scribes is therefore describing the pathway to salvation (accepting Jesus as the Son of God or not blaspheming against the Holy Spirit).

much of what you say is good and true katieo...but i have just opend three of my bibles..the first is called life application bible[new international version..reading job 1;6<<one day the angels came to present themselves to the lord,and satan also came with them>>..next i open self pronouncing edition

king james.job 1;6<<..now there was a day when the sons of god came to present themselves before the lord..[and satan came also ammoung them

so we have in the new version..[satan also came..with them..and the old version..came also ammoung them]..its not as was written

[what happend to rev..22;18...[new age version];..I WARN EVERYONE[who hears these words of the prophecy of this book...if anyone adds anything to them...etc
then 22;19..and if anyone takes words away...

ok i still have the first new testiment [new testimenmt contempory english version..22;18 and here is my warning for any one who hears the prophecies in this book

ok its hair splitting..but the translation is much dependant on the understanding AS WRITTEN..as well as the times they were wrote..it also is relitive..to who it was addressed...where/when/why/

[to place it in context..who will deney the christ three times before the cock crows..is he the head of the church of denial?...is the one that saul that became paul forgiven..for his persution..it must all be kept in context..either its consistant or manipulated by special intrests

i will return to my first book

rev 22;6..these words are true and can be trusted..the lord god...controls the spirits of his prophets..and he is the one who sent his angel...to show his servants..what musy happen straight away

remember i am comming SOON..god will bless everyone who pays attention to the mess-age of this book...

so i tried to read the book with all seriosness when i came acrross a complete bible[because so too was my name john...lol]..then later i found out my name was johan...as more is revealed more is learned]

its worth remembering rev 22;11

The real clash is between science and religious fundamentalism. Most Christians do not have any difficulty with the idea of science, it is only those who take their bibles literally that run into problems with understanding science.

And as fundamentalists are only a very tiny proportion of religious folk, although I acknowledge their noise would indicate otherwise, I find these arguments rather pointless. There is so much we could be concentrating our energy on - such as equity, world peace and responsible care for our environment.