China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years

[PeterMP]

Very quickly:

 

1.  The idea that religion and naturalism/science conflict is not accurate.  We all act daily on things for which the value of the evidence is unclear and not scientific/naturalistic.

 

2.  When Jesus talks about people seeing the second coming that does not mean that the people there would be "alive" for the second coming.  We will all see the second coming as we all have eternal "life", which Jesus was also clear on.

 

3.  You have to distinguish between the second coming and the resurrection in the relevant verses too making it more complex.

 

4.  Why are we leaving out ideas related to the end coming like a thief in the night?  If I know it will come before the current generation dies, that isn't exactly a thief in the night.

 

5.  A religion based on the end time coming in the current generation and/or quickly would seem to have a very short life team appeal.  Look at what happens today when people wrongly predict the end time.  We laugh at them.  People don't flock to be associated with them.  Some early Christians certainly thought they'd see the second coming, but I don't think there is good evidence that the belief was pervasive.

 

6.  I don't think Jesus knew everything while human.  I don't think knowing everything is consistent with being human.

 

7.  I have no idea what any of this has to do with the number Christians growing in China and seems to be the result of another desire by alexey to bash religion and take a thread that was about a some what related topic and make it about what he wants to discuss.  I understand when this sort of thing happens after several pages, but when we can't get more than 10 posts into the topic without the derail, in my opinion that's an issue.

 

This is a busy time for me (an end of a semester) so this will likely be my only post.

[endzone_dave]

It comes from the Gospels.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-34.htm

You might make the case it's taken out of context (it suggests a meaning such as "be mindful of the present"), but it's in there all right.

Personally I find the business about wailing and gnashing of teeth most troubling.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/13-42.htm

Still I think the general theme (of the Gospels anyway) is one of selflessness and love.

http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+13:34-35

The trouble with taking scripture as fact is that it contradicts itself. You have to interpret it. I'm going with the "love one another" version.

 

Jesus was not preaching to not worry about tomorrow because the end of the world is coming anyway. You can cherry pick verses to come up with that but it's incorrect.

 

Jesus said "“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

 

Did he really want us to hate our families?

 

Jesus said ""Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

 

Was Jesus telling us to scrap cemeteries?

 

Jesus was telling us not to worry about earthly problems but to focus on God, not to disregard what is happening because the world is coming to an end.

 

[MEANDWARF]

The future may be a role reversal whereas instead of American Missionaries going to other countries to spread the gospel, Christians from other countries will be coming over here to witness to Americans about Christ.

[Zguy28]

The future may be a role reversal whereas instead of American Missionaries going to other countries to spread the gospel, Christians from other countries will be coming over here to witness to Americans about Christ.

Already happening. The USA is the third highest when it comes to unchurched nations. Only China and India are higher.

[mcsluggo]

so, the country with the third biggest population in the word trails only the countries witht the first and second biggest populations in number of people that are <<unchurched? whatever that means?>>?

 

really?

[Jumbo]

Much of the time in discussions between adherents of a major religion and non-adherents, you will find that eventually it gets to a point where one person will view the other person as either "willfully blind" (the non-adherent) or "just crazy" (the adherent). What varies is the amount of time it takes during "the exchanging of thoughts"         to get to where you apply that label to the other person.

 

 

But it's not necessarily "over" or even all bad once you get there. There's always the depth gauge to consider--just how much blindness or how much craziness do you find in their views, and are there things you like about them anyway?     

 

I'm of a mind that in most things, learning how to achieve and accept true compromise and tolerance (even respect, ideally) between passionately competing views is always one of our greatest challenges, but it's only been increasing in importance these last few thousand years with globally growing population and technology.

 

I know I need to keep working at it. And I do still think it's all worth it, easily, even with people being people and all. 

[Zguy28]

so, the country with the third biggest population in the word trails only the countries witht the first and second biggest populations in number of people that are <<unchurched? whatever that means?>>?

 

really?

Unchurched means simply not belonging to a church of some kind. Essentially there are many who may claim Christianity on paper, but its merely a cultural or familial thing, and they are not part of a fellowship of Christians, which is what the New Testament calls Christians to do. Jesus didn't envision voluntary  "lone rangers". I only say this because people believe the USA is a Christian nation. No it isn't.

[s0crates]

On America being a Christian nation: roughly70-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, but I wouldn't call us a humble nation that turns the other cheek.

[RansomthePasserby]

<<unchurched? whatever that means?>>?

Unchurched = someone who doesn't regularly attend a church.

[Dallsux]

This quote caught my attention:

It shows both a profound understanding of the teachings of Jesus and complete ignorance of the church's history.

Oh the irony of Christianity.

Christianity itself is not the problem. It never has been. It is the overall lack of understanding of it, both from those who claim to be Christians & those who do not. Unfortunately, more often than not, Christians themselves are more to blame for why non Christians don't understand it.

 

"The leading cause of atheism in the world is Christians who proclaim Jesus with their lips, then walk out their door & deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

On America being a Christian nation: roughly70-80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, but I wouldn't call us a humble nation that turns the other cheek.

The sad truth is that when you research further, most of that 70-80% believe that simply going to church makes them a Christian. Only about 25-30% of Americans are truly "Christian" at this point.

 

Going to church doesn't make a person a Christian anymore that going to a garage makes them a car.

[757SeanTaylor21]

When people start realizing that Christianity is a lifestyle and not religion better off people would be. Christ preached a lot of intimacy...relationship.

One that encounters true repentance and relationship brings forth true change.

[alexey]

When people start realizing that Christianity is a lifestyle and not religion better off people would be. Christ preached a lot of intimacy...relationship.

One that encounters true repentance and relationship brings forth true change.

Christianity is also a system of beliefs that claims to have special knowledge.

[Zguy28]

Christianity is also a system of beliefs that claims to have special knowledge.

Yep, and we like to call it "special revelation". But it means nothing if it isn't lived as well.

[alexey]

Yep, and we like to call it "special revelation". But it means nothing if it isn't lived as well.

belief -> knowledge vs knowledge -> belief

[twa]

The future may be a role reversal whereas instead of American Missionaries going to other countries to spread the gospel, Christians from other countries will be coming over here to witness to Americans about Christ.

 

it is happening here, I've had Koreans and Mexicans both at my door

the Korean bilingual service makes my head hurt

[Zguy28]

belief -> knowledge vs knowledge -> belief

a little of both. I believed because of knowledge given through the gospel. But I also believe because God has revealed it.

[alexey]

a little of both. I believed because of knowledge given through the gospel. But I also believe because God has revealed it.

With naturalism, I understand the difference between knowledge and speculation.

[PeterMP]

With naturalism, I understand the difference between knowledge and speculation.

Here we go again.

 

Does naturalism lead you to the knowledge that tomorrow will like today or is that speculation?

 

Can you define how you are using naturalism in this thread?

 

Is there something not subsumed by science that is part of naturalism?

 

I'm happy to take this point to the same point the last thread was and again point out that you don't/won't/can't answer the relevant questions at the end.

 

That all you are left to do in the end is avoid questoins and make snarky comments that you don't really want to back up.

[alexey]

Naturalism is pretty good at making predictions, e.g. the sun will come up at 6:14 am tomorrow.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

Note the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

[PeterMP]

Naturalism is pretty good at making predictions, e.g. the sun will come up at 6:14 am tomorrow.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

Note the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

 

How do you know?

 

What test have you ever done on all of the predictions that naturalism makes?

 

You are seeing a "pattern", asserting it is "good", but you don't really have any good evidence that's the case, and given the human brains known tendency to see patterns where are none exist, is there actually any real evidence to believe the pattern is real?

 

It just seems that way.

 

Is there any real good evidence to believe the system is not random?

 

The fact of the matter is the only evidence is the evidence that I gave in the other thread.  And you know it and I know it, and if I was wrong, you would have given the evidence in the other thread.

[alexey]

Peter, you can get up tomorrow morning and verify that the sun rises as predicted by naturalism at 6:14am.

[s0crates]

It's only a matter of time in these threads before we discuss the problem of induction (however tangential). Hume you silly sophist you, look what you've wrought!

Maybe science isn't really knowledge. Maybe a scientific theory is a mere hypothesis which can never be confirmed. Maybe science can only falsify. If the sun doesn't come up tomorrow, a lot of theories would be falsified. Maybe all we can honestly say is that the hypothesis hasn't been falsified yet. Scientific method is a process of falsification not confirmation. The longer a theory goes without being falsified, the more credence we give it, but it is merely corroborated and never confirmed.

That was (roughly) Karl Popper's answer to Hume. I have a hard time thinking of a better one. Although people seem to think science does more than falsify, that it somehow discovers the truth. If it does discover the truth, well then we need a different answer for Hume.

[PeterMP]

It's only a matter of time in these threads before we discuss the problem of induction (however tangential). Hume you silly sophist you, look what you've wrought!

Maybe science isn't really knowledge. Maybe a scientific theory is a mere hypothesis which can never be confirmed. Maybe science can only falsify. If the sun doesn't come up tomorrow, a lot of theories would be falsified. Maybe all we can honestly say is that the hypothesis hasn't been falsified yet. Scientific method is a process of falsification not confirmation. The longer a theory goes without being falsified, the more credence we give it, but it is merely corroborated and never confirmed.

That was (roughly) Karl Popper's answer to Hume. I have a hard time thinking of a better one. Although people seem to think science does more than falsify, that it somehow discovers the truth. If it does discover the truth, well then we need a different answer for Hume.

 

I don't think induction/science/naturalism really has a problem.  It is a tool and even a powerful tool.

 

The problem only becomes when people utilize it incorrectly.  And that's what happens here when alexey starts claiming/implying that the evidence in support of it is non-subjective/qualitative in nature and therefore can be judged as better in a real manner (e.g. quantitatively and/or scientifically).

 

But then the problem isn't with induction/science/naturalism.

 

I wouldn't say induction has a problem any more than I'd say the hammer has a problem if I walked up on a person trying to use a hammer as a screw driver.  The person that doesn't understand the nature of their tool has the problem.

 

And if that way of thinking becomes wide spread, then you have a wide spread problem and people might to start to get angry stop using their hammers even though there is nothing wrong with their hammers.

[alexey]

I don't think induction/science/naturalism really has a problem. It is a tool and even a powerful tool.

The problem only becomes when people utilize it incorrectly. And that's what happens here when alexey starts claiming/implying that the evidence in support of it is non-subjective/qualitative in nature and therefore can be judged as better in a real manner (e.g. quantitatively and/or scientifically).

...

Peter,

Methodological naturalism allows us to predict events in the natural world with very high precision. Evidence = predictions come true. This is why some people say that methodological naturalism is a very useful tool.

Is methodological naturalism better than other tools? Well, what do you mean by "better" and what other tools are we talking about?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Methodological naturalism allows us to predict events in the natural world with very high precision. Evidence = predictions come true. This is why some people say that methodological naturalism is a very useful tool.

Is methodological naturalism better than other tools? Well, what do you mean by "better" and what other tools are we talking about?

I've never said there was no evidence, and I've repeatedly told you that in the other thread and as alluded to in my last post where I talked about you claiming/implying the evidence is non-subjective (i.e. I'm saying there is evidence it is subjective though).

 

The question is how many predictions and how good are they really, which is related to the questions that I asked you above that you can't/won't, and don't answer.