Believe Jesus is the Son of God?

[Rev. Bob]

Quick question just to poll a sample from the Oklahoma City area. Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? If not, why?

[Luke]

Yes, I do.

[Keith]

I do, too.

[Midtowner]

The Nicene Creed, approved by the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. pretty much sums up my religious beliefs.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

[Floating_adrift]

I'd like to, and have tried several times, but I simply can't get past the creationism/immaculate conception/burning bush/parting of the red sea/world flooding types of events. Evolution makes too much sense, and those other events seem a bit far fetched, like something you would read in Greek mythology. I do enjoy discussing it though.

[Midtowner]

I'd like to, and have tried several times, but I simply can't get past the creationism/immaculate conception/burning bush/parting of the red sea/world flooding types of events. Evolution makes too much sense, and those other events seem a bit far fetched, like something you would read in Greek mythology. I do enjoy discussing it though.

See the above.

I believe there's a big difference in believing in Jesus and worshipping the Bible. I believe the Bible is full of a bunch of stories that are meant to teach concepts, not describe events that really happened. I'm with you on evolution though, many members of my church (Roman Catholic) would agree that the Old Testament especially is not meant to be taken literally.

[Ms.Relaxationstation]

I'd like to, and have tried several times, but I simply can't get past the creationism/immaculate conception/burning bush/parting of the red sea/world flooding types of events. Evolution makes too much sense, and those other events seem a bit far fetched, like something you would read in Greek mythology. I do enjoy discussing it though.

When one looks upon or witnesses the birth of a newborn baby, it's hard not to see that there just might be a God that's bigger than our understanding.

[Midtowner]

When one looks upon or witnesses the birth of a newborn baby, it's hard not to see that there just might be a God that's bigger than our understanding.

And when you consider how sex and babies occur, you have to believe (if you're a creationist) that the guy has a sense of humor.

[Floating_adrift]

When one looks upon or witnesses the birth of a newborn baby, it's hard not to see that there just might be a God that's bigger than our understanding.

I can't dispute that it's pretty fantastic, but it sure doesn't lend itself to the existence any supernatural being. It's nature's way of mixing up the gene pool.

[Patrick]

I'd like to, and have tried several times, but I simply can't get past the creationism/immaculate conception/burning bush/parting of the red sea/world flooding types of events. Evolution makes too much sense, and those other events seem a bit far fetched, like something you would read in Greek mythology. I do enjoy discussing it though.

And you believe humans evolved from monkeys? That's an even harder concept to grasp.

Here's my interpretation of the Big Bang Theory: God said he wanted to create the universe, and then BANG it happened.

An all powerful God can do anything, right? Our little peon human brains just can't grasp the full concept of God though.

Just imagine how big God is compared to us. Now think about how large we are compared to an ant farm! If we get tired of ants out in our garden, we have the power to flood them all out, right?

Immaculate conception....well, I suppose God creates life, so He can do it either with sperm and egg or without. His choice.

Burning bush...well God is described as a pillar of fire.

Parts of the Bible are symbolic and figurative, so you have to take that into account. But at the same time, take the book of Isaiah for instance.....the current NIV has been compared ot original scripts (Isaiah is one of the few books where the original scripts still exist...the Dead Sea Scipts, I believe they're called). Anyways, the general concepts presented in the NIV haven't changed much over they years from the original scripts.

I have seen too many miracles in my life and answers to prayer to not believe in God. Coincidence couldn't occur that many times.

[Floating_adrift]

And you believe humans evolved from monkeys? That's an even harder concept to grasp.

Here's my interpretation of the Big Bang Theory: God said he wanted to create the universe, and then BANG it happened.

An all powerful God can do anything, right? Our little peon human brains just can't grasp the full concept of God though.

Just imagine how big God is compared to us. Now think about how large we are compared to an ant farm! If we get tired of ants out in our garden, we have the power to flood them all out, right?

Immaculate conception....well, I suppose God creates life, so He can do it either with sperm and egg or without. His choice.

Burning bush...well God is described as a pillar of fire.

Parts of the Bible are symbolic and figurative, so you have to take that into account. But at the same time, take the book of Isaiah for instance.....the current NIV has been compared ot original scripts (Isaiah is one of the few books where the original scripts still exist...the Dead Sea Scipts, I believe they're called). Anyways, the general concepts presented in the NIV haven't changed much over they years from the original scripts.

I have seen too many miracles in my life and answers to prayer to not believe in God. Coincidence couldn't occur that many times.

I'm not disputing the power of God. I understand that if He exists in the way the Bible describes Him, then He is omnipotent and that pretty much explains everything. Still, it seems a bit like hocus pocus in the face of evolution - to me. Please don't get me wrong, I wish I could believe, as I totally respect it as a great way of life. But some people need a bit more than a book and coincidences.

Evolving from early homonids is easier for me to believe than, 'Poof', instant mankind. Grasping what evolution can do given 4.4 million years is hard for some to comprehend as well. Keep in mind that what we see today are the successful evolutionary branches, not the failures.

We may have peon brains, but I don't think we give ourselves enough credit for what humankind can accomplish given the proper time and resources.

[Floating_adrift]

But using that line of thought, how do you decide what to believe and what not to believe in the bible?

[Midtowner]

But using that line of thought, how do you decide what to believe and what not to believe in the bible?

Well, my belief is that the Bible is a good book full of some interesting concepts. However, it's like the world's longest game of telephone, the message, while maintaining a few of its original characteristics has been corrupted a great deal over the past. The Bible, while providing us some history and some stories about Christ, God, etc., is not the end all, be all of Christianity. So as far as what to believe and what not to believe, except for the above mentioned items embodied in the Nicene Creed, it really doesn't matter.

[Floating_adrift]

It seems that God would have protected His word from corruption through the ages. But I still don't see how anyone can believe in one central theme as solid, undeniable fact while writing the rest of it off as something that may or may not matter. I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that the part of Jesus is true and the rest may not?

[Midtowner]

It seems that God would have protected His word from corruption through the ages. But I still don't see how anyone can believe in one central theme as solid, undeniable fact while writing the rest of it off as something that may or may not matter. I mean, how do you come to the conclusion that the part of Jesus is true and the rest may not?

If God had protected His word from corruption, why do manuscripts of the Lord's Prayer differ GREATLY with the one currently found in our English translated Bibles?

Here's an excellent article about the corruption of the scriptures over time:

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm

As far as the part about Jesus being true, and the rest not, I'll admit, I do have difficulty with it. There's no logical necessity to it and there's really nothing that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. I guess, more than anything else, it's just Pascal's gamble (paraphrased): If you believe, you die and you were right in believing, good for you. If you believe, you die and God doesn't exist, nothing lost.

[Floating_adrift]

Yeah I've considered Pascal's gamble, but I'd think that God would be able to see through someone believing because it's the 'safe bet' and whether or not they truly believed. I guess I see Pascal's gamble from a different perspective, if God exists, he made me the way I am and gave me the difficulties that I have in believing. So how can I be at fault for not believing something for which there is no definitive answer?

[Midtowner]

Yeah I've considered Pascal's gamble, but I'd think that God would be able to see through someone believing because it's the 'safe bet' and whether or not they truly believed. I guess I see Pascal's gamble from a different perspective, if God exists, he made me the way I am and gave me the difficulties that I have in believing. So how can I be at fault for not believing something for which there is no definitive answer?

Well, the answer is that He would have given you the ability to choose to believe or not.

[Floating_adrift]

Yeah, I don't get the 'it's a choice' argument. It seems to me that you either believe or don't believe. Can you choose not to believe in gravity?

[Midtowner]

Yeah, I don't get the 'it's a choice' argument. It seems to me that you either believe or don't believe. Can you choose not to believe in gravity?

Gravity is something that can be observed in nature. Now as far as God, I recognize that some kind of being, a first mover must exist simply out of logical necessity. Every action has a cause, every thing comes from some other thing. Nothing comes from nothing. Since now we are something, at the beginning of existance as we know it, there had to be something. I consider God to be a logical necessity as the universe needed a 'first mover'.

[Ms.Relaxationstation]

Yes, I believe that Jesus is the son of God

[Floating_adrift]

Gravity is something that can be observed in nature. Now as far as God, I recognize that some kind of being, a first mover must exist simply out of logical necessity. Every action has a cause, every thing comes from some other thing. Nothing comes from nothing. Since now we are something, at the beginning of existance as we know it, there had to be something. I consider God to be a logical necessity as the universe needed a 'first mover'.

So the age old question - where did God come from? Silly question, but valid for the first mover idea. And going from the necessity of a first mover to a first mover that requires us to believe in him or be sent to hell for eternity sure is a big leap. Why does the 'first mover' need to be anything more than a simple chance event? Why is so much attached to the thinking that since so many things around us are so perfect that the only answer is that there must be an intelligent being behind all of it? My answer is simple, everything around us is so perfect because if it were any other way, we wouldn't exist here to talk about it - it has to be perfect, it has to have been that chance event that started everything - it couldn't happen any other way.

[Midtowner]

So the age old question - where did God come from? Silly question, but valid for the first mover idea. And going from the necessity of a first mover to a first mover that requires us to believe in him or be sent to hell for eternity sure is a big leap. Why does the 'first mover' need to be anything more than a simple chance event? Why is so much attached to the thinking that since so many things around us are so perfect that the only answer is that there must be an intelligent being behind all of it? My answer is simple, everything around us is so perfect because if it were any other way, we wouldn't exist here to talk about it - it has to be perfect, it has to have been that chance even that started everything - it couldn't happen any other way.

Well, then I'll bring you back to Pascal's Gamble.

As fars as the first mover willing Earth to exist and the Big Bang to happen a certain way.. who knows if they did. Who knows if they were pleased? What is faith afterall other than a delusion of knowledge?

Faith isn't something that is rational, and generally speaking, I'm a rational person. In my Church, for a priest to attend seminary, they must have at least an undergraduate background in philosophy.

Now as far as the system of morality and sin, whether or not it's true, one would be hard pressed to say that it's not a good system to live by. My church teaches of course that only God can judge whether something is a sin or not (so I get a littler perterbed at some on here who describe certain acts as sinful as if they were an authority on that), however, my church also teaches that good acts are good things and looked upon favorably by God.

Does he care? Rationally -- who knows.

Am I better off to believe He cares, and later on discover that I was right to do so vs. not believing that He exists and being disappointed that I must spend eternity in damnnation? Yeah, probably so The worst that can happen is that I believe, I'm wrong, so then I don't exist.

[Floating_adrift]

I'll never argue that the bible isn't a great way to live your life - I believe it is an excellent way to live. But I also believe you can be a moral, ethical and outstanding member of the human race and not believe in God.

As for Pascals gamble, how can you believe in something just to be 'on the safe side' and really believe? There's a huge chasm between truly believing something and just going with the flow, just in case.

[Midtowner]

I'll never argue that the bible isn't a great way to live your life - I believe it is an excellent way to live. But I also believe you can be a moral, ethical and outstanding member of the human race and not believe in God.

As for Pascals gamble, how can you believe in something just to be 'on the safe side' and really believe? There's a huge chasm between truly believing something and just going with the flow, just in case.

No, I do believe. Sure there are degrees of belief. I think even the most devout follower of any religion has their doubts. I understand how in many ways it is irrational. It's one of the few times that I'll say "So what" in the face of something irrational (maybe one of the only times?).

I don't think the chasm is so great.

[pilar5422]

Floating_adrift: A wonderful book you might want to read is "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It presents a great argument for Christ backed up by historical and scientific evidence.

Just my two cents.