In And Out Of Faith

[oddbird1963]

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

JayL,

 

I find it hard to believe that you have this great "proof" that you developed and you have not shared it yet. Just like the alleged miracle you worked into the conversation your alleged "proof" seems to be just an attention grabber. I really think you would have shared the miracle on your own or shared the proof already if you really had anything to show.

[Shyone]

Belief does not cost you too much.

 

I challenge you to believe in Santa Clause. Can you do it? If you can't you go to hell.

 

Doesn't cost too much huh?

 

 

 

Santa Claus has nothing to do with hell as far as I know. Are you making things up as you go along?? I don't even follow your logic.

Are you dense, or just missing the point? (Is there a difference?)

 

We cannot believe in something for which there is 1) no proof of existence and 2) some evidence against existence any more than you could believe in a fictional and popular "myth" of Santa Claus.

 

And as far as "making things up as we go along", that's exactly what we say about Christianity. It is an ad lib religion where the doctrines are formulated according to the impossibility of reconciling one doctrine with another. Are you familiar with the "Trinity"?

[Shyone]

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

OK, lets see the proof based on physics and mathematics. I am not proficient in higher math myself, but we have some math teachers and professors on here - some of us should be able to understand it. So let's have it.

As a physician with a degree in chemistry with a minor in physics, I volunteer to analyze the proof of god's existence. It will be interesting to see something that hasn't been hashed to death.

 

My guess would be that it's based on probability theory (and Bayes's Theorem) which has already been tried.

[florduh]

I actually think he's the real deal. But I could be wrong.

That's the interesting thing about Christians. They can say such idiotic things we can't ever be sure if it's a joke or not.

 

This one is so bad, I was convinced early on that it's a joke/troll/or even one of our own having a laugh. I swear on a stack of dead babies I'm not doing this, but I could, and so could you. If it's not a joke, it's the silliest, most ignorant believer I've encountered.

 

I ain't buying it. It's too over the top.

[centauri]

Jesus called the Canaanite women a 'cute puppy'. It was not a derogatory term.

Please cite the translation where Jesus called this woman a cute puppy rather than a dog.

 

Where do Canaanites rank in the social pecking order and how does a curse transform them into "cute puppies" rather than second class humans?

 

Gen 9:25

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

[Ouroboros]

I actually think he's the real deal. But I could be wrong.

That's the interesting thing about Christians. They can say such idiotic things we can't ever be sure if it's a joke or not.

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps Christian is identical to Troll, all the time?

 

This one is so bad, I was convinced early on that it's a joke/troll/or even one of our own having a laugh. I swear on a stack of dead babies I'm not doing this, but I could, and so could you. If it's not a joke, it's the silliest, most ignorant believer I've encountered.

Yeah, but he's not as angry and arrogant as OrdinaryClay or Rayskidude.

 

I ain't buying it. It's too over the top.

We'll see.

[JayL]

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

OK, lets see the proof based on physics and mathematics. I am not proficient in higher math myself, but we have some math teachers and professors on here - some of us should be able to understand it. So let's have it.

As a physician with a degree in chemistry with a minor in physics, I volunteer to analyze the proof of god's existence. It will be interesting to see something that hasn't been hashed to death.

 

My guess would be that it's based on probability theory which has already been tried.

 

 

 

Thank you, Dr. Shyone. Yes, my proof is completely original. And it convinced me enough. It is not based on probability. In fact I worked on this because I am not totally happy with probability approach. They make good cases but the nature is always surprising and to talk about the 'Creator' concept based on likelihood always leaves me with some after taste. My proof is completely different and it is actually closer to information theory approach. It is a deductive approach. That is why I call a 'proof'. However I am reluctant to post it here. Sorry. If I knew you personally I will talk to you in person and you can make up your own mind. But in this kind of discussion board, nah. I am not going to talk about the miracles I have experienced nor my proof that convinced me scientifically. We will just discuss publically known info.

 

Sorry. But, hey, this is the 'lion den', not my living room!

[florduh]

I have proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I'm not going to show you. You'll just have to take my word for it. It's kind of like the proof for Enki.

[Ouroboros]

My proof is completely different and it is actually closer to information theory approach. It is a deductive approach.

Wow! Why haven't you published it? You should get it into print before someone steals your idea.

 

Information Theory, well, that's beyond me.

 

So is it somehow based on data loss or entropy? Isn't the entropy kind of a probability? And data loss correction a form of guessing?

[Shyone]

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

OK, lets see the proof based on physics and mathematics. I am not proficient in higher math myself, but we have some math teachers and professors on here - some of us should be able to understand it. So let's have it.

As a physician with a degree in chemistry with a minor in physics, I volunteer to analyze the proof of god's existence. It will be interesting to see something that hasn't been hashed to death.

 

My guess would be that it's based on probability theory which has already been tried.

 

 

 

Thank you, Dr. Shyone. Yes, my proof is completely original. And it convinced me enough. It is not based on probability. In fact I worked on this because I am not totally happy with probability approach. They make good cases but the nature is always surprising and to talk about the 'Creator' concept based on likelihood always leaves me with some after taste. My proof is completely different and it is actually closer to information theory approach. It is a deductive approach. That is why I call a 'proof'. However I am reluctant to post it here. Sorry. If I knew you personally I will talk to you in person and you can make up your own mind. But in this kind of discussion board, nah. I am not going to talk about the miracles I have experienced nor my proof that convinced me scientifically. We will just discuss publically known info.

 

Sorry. But, hey, this is the 'lion den', not my living room!

Like with Ouroboros, it might be beyond me, but I'll make you a promise.

 

1. I will not divulge your proof to anyone without your permission, nor will I offer an opinion about your proof on this or any other board or format without your permission.

2. We can communicate via PM or even email

3. I can at least try to offer a critique and, if the approach has validity, it really may be good for you to know that you're not just "preaching to the choir."

 

I would certainly ask your permission to post my review, but I would understand if you declined my request.

 

 

It's a win-win. And I make this vow with the same committment as I take my oath regarding personal information from patients.

[par4dcourse]

I am not going to talk about the miracles I have experienced nor my proof that convinced me scientifically. We will just discuss publically known info.

 

Sorry. But, hey, this is the 'lion den', not my living room!

 

It's a super-duper secret xians only club and we heathens wouldn't understand. Na na boo boo.

 

JayL, we're all intelligent adults here and I'm calling bullshit on your "proof". I think you realized there are doctors and scientists among us and you have nothing more than high hopes and church dogma, like so many before.

 

Prove me wrong.

[JayL]

Belief does not cost you too much.

 

I challenge you to believe in Santa Clause. Can you do it? If you can't you go to hell.

 

Doesn't cost too much huh?

 

 

 

Santa Claus has nothing to do with hell as far as I know. Are you making things up as you go along?? I don't even follow your logic.

 

The logic is simple. It's impossible to make yourself believe in something. Either you are presented with persuasive evidence that makes you believe or you just believe because you were indoctrinated as a youth. I cannot believe even though I was indoctrinated in my youth because as I examined the evidence it fell apart. Given that I cannot make myself believe the cost is impossible.

 

 

I fully agree with you that one needs solid evidence.

 

Christianity say 'Just believe, just believe!!' and good people like yourself and others says, 'What is this? I am a rational person. I am not getting sold here.' It is a desperate person like myself who is unhappy and in trouble who grasps at the straw, saying, I need help! I surely need God even though I am not sure He is real! And I become a Christian. The third class is the 'indoctrinated' ones who later became intellectual and decided to live without Christian faith. Those people also demand solid evidence.

 

The reason I could not follow Santa Claus logic was that we are talking about Pascal's wager. Belief in Santa is something different. Now, we can apply Pascal's wager to Islam which is a major religion that try to shape people's mind. And my response was that the cost was much higher there than in Christianity - and the payoff quite questionable, to say the least, given the character of Mohammed the rapist.

 

Now applying Pascal's wager to Christianity as Pascal has done is relatively rational, in my view. Jesus Christ is a great person. He made a huge claim. But the cost ( in America at least ) is quite low. So I think it makes sense as an insurance - just in case what Jesus says is true. What if hell is true? That is horrible thought! I'd rather be looked down by intellectual class and sleep better at night - knowing that I am covered. According to Christian theology, I don't have to worry about hell. But intellectuals do even though they deny it! That peace of mind is worth something!

 

Actually the anger people like Bart Ehrman and other atheists exhibit may have to do with it. The concept of judgement and hell is a terrible thing and I guess Christianity has to be careful about this.

 

I think the situation is like this. If you look at Islam, a more violent religion than Christianity, we find most people in Islamic countries call themselves muslims even if they do not practice at all. There is an implied cultural threat in the background so that dissenters would rather classify themselves as muslims even though they have lots of doubt. To oppose Islam is too costly. They may get killed by angry believers! So they just classify themselves as muslims and go on with their lives. ( I can tell them, hey take a look at the history! Mohammed was a criminal guy. But they'd rather look away. They don't want trouble. )

 

In the old days when Christian culture was strong, fear of hell may have acted as similar cultural threat even though Christianity overall was much less violent than Islam and is open to toleration of dissenters. Most people classify themselves as Christians because they reasoned according to Pascal's wager and said 'What if hell is true? I don't want to take any chance!'. They may go to church on Christmas for the bright pageant but that is about it. They are not really interested that much.

 

 

Yes, that is the situation. Desperate people do turn to Christianity and find somethings they like. To me, it was big help. But most good people out there want more solid evidence. But you know, Christianity is not that bad as an acceptable low cost insurance. Christianity as practiced today is not that objectionable at all.

 

 

Ok, I gotta get back to evidence.

[JayL]

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

OK, lets see the proof based on physics and mathematics. I am not proficient in higher math myself, but we have some math teachers and professors on here - some of us should be able to understand it. So let's have it.

As a physician with a degree in chemistry with a minor in physics, I volunteer to analyze the proof of god's existence. It will be interesting to see something that hasn't been hashed to death.

 

My guess would be that it's based on probability theory which has already been tried.

 

 

 

Thank you, Dr. Shyone. Yes, my proof is completely original. And it convinced me enough. It is not based on probability. In fact I worked on this because I am not totally happy with probability approach. They make good cases but the nature is always surprising and to talk about the 'Creator' concept based on likelihood always leaves me with some after taste. My proof is completely different and it is actually closer to information theory approach. It is a deductive approach. That is why I call a 'proof'. However I am reluctant to post it here. Sorry. If I knew you personally I will talk to you in person and you can make up your own mind. But in this kind of discussion board, nah. I am not going to talk about the miracles I have experienced nor my proof that convinced me scientifically. We will just discuss publically known info.

 

Sorry. But, hey, this is the 'lion den', not my living room!

Like with Ouroboros, it might be beyond me, but I'll make you a promise.

 

1. I will not divulge your proof to anyone without your permission, nor will I offer an opinion about your proof on this or any other board or format without your permission.

2. We can communicate via PM or even email

3. I can at least try to offer a critique and, if the approach has validity, it really may be good for you to know that you're not just "preaching to the choir."

 

I would certainly ask your permission to post my review, but I would understand if you declined my request.

 

 

It's a win-win. And I make this vow with the same committment as I take my oath regarding personal information from patients.

 

 

 

Thank you so much for your interest. I appreciate it. I may think about your kind offer. But I am still relatively protective about this as an 'intellectual property'. ( No laughing please ! ) But it is not everyday I come up with something new that I am really happy with. If we knew each other and probably you are a sincere person, yes, I will be happy to tell you. It would be something fascinating to think about. But would this lead to faith in Jesus Christ? Probably not.

 

It is a big topic and I\d rather not post it here. In fact, I am the guilty one because I brought it up. I apologize. For now, we will just talk about non personal stuff.

[JayL]

I am not going to talk about the miracles I have experienced nor my proof that convinced me scientifically. We will just discuss publically known info.

 

Sorry. But, hey, this is the 'lion den', not my living room!

 

It's a super-duper secret xians only club and we heathens wouldn't understand. Na na boo boo.

 

JayL, we're all intelligent adults here and I'm calling bullshit on your "proof". I think you realized there are doctors and scientists among us and you have nothing more than high hopes and church dogma, like so many before.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

 

 

See this was the response I wanted when I brought the subject " Oh 'proof based on physics and mathematics? Give me a break. Don't make me laugh! You are just total B.S."

 

And we will just laugh and go on to other topics. Discuss the Bible etc. I am somewhat apologetic now that some people are actually interested. Sorry.

[Ouroboros]

 

Christianity say 'Just believe, just believe!!' and good people like yourself and others says, 'What is this? I am a rational person. I am not getting sold here.' It is a desperate person like myself who is unhappy and in trouble who grasps at the straw, saying, I need help! I surely need God even though I am not sure He is real! And I become a Christian. The third class is the 'indoctrinated' ones who later became intellectual and decided to live without Christian faith. Those people also demand solid evidence.

 

The reason I could not follow Santa Claus logic was that we are talking about Pascal's wager. Belief in Santa is something different. Now, we can apply Pascal's wager to Islam which is a major religion that try to shape people's mind. And my response was that the cost was much higher there than in Christianity - and the payoff quite questionable, to say the least, given the character of Mohammed the rapist.

 

Now applying Pascal's wager to Christianity as Pascal has done is relatively rational, in my view. Jesus Christ is a great person. He made a huge claim. But the cost ( in America at least ) is quite low. So I think it makes sense as an insurance - just in case what Jesus says is true. What if hell is true? That is horrible thought! I'd rather be looked down by intellectual class and sleep better at night - knowing that I am covered. According to Christian theology, I don't have to worry about hell. But intellectuals do even though they deny it! That peace of mind is worth something!

So why doesn't Pascal's Wager give me faith and belief in the imaginary Jesus?

 

Actually the anger people like Bart Ehrman and other atheists exhibit may have to do with it. The concept of judgement and hell is a terrible thing and I guess Christianity has to be careful about this.

You do know that Ehrman and the others spent years in getting their degrees in Bible knowledge... if the Bible can't keep them convinced... I'm not sure what can. Or perhaps you're suggesting that they never thought carefully about their belief, when in fact they're claiming that it was the careful thought that brought them out from the belief.

 

 

 

Thank you so much for your interest. I appreciate it. I may think about your kind offer. But I am still relatively protective about this as an 'intellectual property'. ( No laughing please ! ) But it is not everyday I come up with something new that I am really happy with. If we knew each other and probably you are a sincere person, yes, I will be happy to tell you. It would be something fascinating to think about. But would this lead to faith in Jesus Christ? Probably not.

If it's deductive, as you said, then it's no option than to know that God exists.

 

Deductive leads to a conclusive, undeniable, and solidly evident result. Unless you have mixed in some inductive reasoning in it.

 

So I'm not sure how you can say it won't lead to belief when it's a deductive argument.

 

All so-called deductive arguments for God starts with a premise that are inductive or making a lot of presumptions. But you claim that your argument does not.

 

Seriously, if you do have this proof, then you should write a research paper and send to one of the journals in philosophy. You could become big, man.

[JayL]

Jesus called the Canaanite women a 'cute puppy'. It was not a derogatory term.

Please cite the translation where Jesus called this woman a cute puppy rather than a dog.

 

Where do Canaanites rank in the social pecking order and how does a curse transform them into "cute puppies" rather than second class humans?

 

Gen 9:25

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

 

 

This was another one of my non serious comment. I thought people would just roll their eyes and attack back with fury of political correctness.

 

But it is serious. Some people take offense at this exchange between Canaanite woman and Jesus. But in reality, what happened may be quite OK. Canaanites are looked down upon by religious Jews and they ARE often called 'dogs'. Quite derogatory. So when this Canaanite woman became nuisance she also half expected cold shoulder from Jesus. But Jesus engaged her and said 'It is not right to throw children's food to pet puppies, you know.' Jesus not not calling her a canine. But there is that resonance of derogatory term she had been called by Jews. ( Jews may take offence and say, 'You are calling us little children? We are smarter than you, Jesus from nowhere! ' )

 

Anyhow, the Canaanite woman was desperate. She wanted the healing for her daughter. So she quickly responded to Jesus' game. She retorted, playing along, 'Sir, shouldn't pet puppies get some bread crumbs from the table?' Her response brought a happy laughter from Jesus. " Woman, you have great faith.' A praise. Can you imagine that? Anyhow, her daughter recovered. And happy ending.

 

This story has a lot of interesting lessons for Christian believers. And we are not terribly offended by 'dog' terminology. I hope you see our point.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

But the most important thing is that I convinced myself! I no longer wonder about the existence question. I am rather confident about existence of God.

 

You’ve got this proof that will convince us to believe and save our souls from eternal damnation, and you won’t give it to us!!??!!

 

What kind of a Christian are you?

 

What does Jesus have to say about this?

 

Have mercy on us po’ sinners, puhleese!

[godsfavoritecolor]

And while you’re at it, JayL, how about explaining to me Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

[JayL]

If it's deductive, as you said, then it's no option than to know that God exists.

 

Deductive leads to a conclusive, undeniable, and solidly evident result. Unless you have mixed in some inductive reasoning in it.

 

So I'm not sure how you can say it won't lead to belief when it's a deductive argument.

 

All so-called deductive arguments for God starts with a premise that are inductive or making a lot of presumptions. But you claim that your argument does not.

 

Seriously, if you do have this proof, then you should write a research paper and send to one of the journals in philosophy. You could become big, man.

 

 

Well, I did send my proof to Dennis Prager thinking he may appreciate it. But so far, I haven't heard back. He probably thought, 'Oh another crazy email' LOL. Well, at this point, I may try to contact people like Dinesh Souza or Varghese. But there are similar arguments based on informational theory IN PUBLIC that look promising to me.

 

 

Perhaps the best deductive proof may be one constructed by Kurt Godel based on the good ole Kalaam argument. ( He was a pious Lutheran ) But I have no hope of understanding. Because I couldn't even get thru his incompleteness theorem. I am just a layman probably like most people here.

 

But apparently, Godel used to talk a lot with Einstein towards their old age about how time is just an illusion. Isn't that fascinating?? I bet a number of Christian thinker would be keen on that idea. ( How does God know what is going to happen in the future, etc. ? )

[Dagan]

Jesus called the Canaanite women a 'cute puppy'. It was not a derogatory term.

Please cite the translation where Jesus called this woman a cute puppy rather than a dog.

 

Where do Canaanites rank in the social pecking order and how does a curse transform them into "cute puppies" rather than second class humans?

 

Gen 9:25

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

 

 

This was another one of my non serious comment. I thought people would just roll their eyes and attack back with fury of political correctness.

 

But it is serious. Some people take offense at this exchange between Canaanite woman and Jesus. But in reality, what happened may be quite OK. Canaanites are looked down upon by religious Jews and they ARE often called 'dogs'. Quite derogatory. So when this Canaanite woman became nuisance she also half expected cold shoulder from Jesus. But Jesus engaged her and said 'It is not right to throw children's food to pet puppies, you know.' Jesus not not calling her a canine. But there is that resonance of derogatory term she had been called by Jews. ( Jews may take offence and say, 'You are calling us little children? We are smarter than you, Jesus from nowhere! ' )

 

Anyhow, the Canaanite woman was desperate. She wanted the healing for her daughter. So she quickly responded to Jesus' game. She retorted, playing along, 'Sir, shouldn't pet puppies get some bread crumbs from the table?' Her response brought a happy laughter from Jesus. " Woman, you have great faith.' A praise. Can you imagine that? Anyhow, her daughter recovered. And happy ending.

 

This story has a lot of interesting lessons for Christian believers. And we are not terribly offended by 'dog' terminology. I hope you see our point.

 

I would like to see this Rainbows, Unicorns and Pet Puppies translation of the bible.

 

Matthew 15:22-28 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

 

So first he ignores her, then he lets his disciples try and get rid of her, when they fail, he insults her, and only gives in when she acknowledges that her people are subservient to the wonderful Jews.

 

New King James Version uses the term "little dogs." I don't think that makes it any less of an insult.

[par4dcourse]

You’ve got this proof that will convince us to believe and save our souls from eternal damnation, and you won’t give it to us!!??!!

 

What kind of a Christian are you?

 

What does Jesus have to say about this?

 

Have mercy on us po’ sinners, puhleese!

 

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

Jay is obviously responsible for our souls now. He better get busy with that proof.

[JayL]

Jesus called the Canaanite women a 'cute puppy'. It was not a derogatory term.

Please cite the translation where Jesus called this woman a cute puppy rather than a dog.

 

Where do Canaanites rank in the social pecking order and how does a curse transform them into "cute puppies" rather than second class humans?

 

Gen 9:25

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

 

 

This was another one of my non serious comment. I thought people would just roll their eyes and attack back with fury of political correctness.

 

But it is serious. Some people take offense at this exchange between Canaanite woman and Jesus. But in reality, what happened may be quite OK. Canaanites are looked down upon by religious Jews and they ARE often called 'dogs'. Quite derogatory. So when this Canaanite woman became nuisance she also half expected cold shoulder from Jesus. But Jesus engaged her and said 'It is not right to throw children's food to pet puppies, you know.' Jesus not not calling her a canine. But there is that resonance of derogatory term she had been called by Jews. ( Jews may take offence and say, 'You are calling us little children? We are smarter than you, Jesus from nowhere! ' )

 

Anyhow, the Canaanite woman was desperate. She wanted the healing for her daughter. So she quickly responded to Jesus' game. She retorted, playing along, 'Sir, shouldn't pet puppies get some bread crumbs from the table?' Her response brought a happy laughter from Jesus. " Woman, you have great faith.' A praise. Can you imagine that? Anyhow, her daughter recovered. And happy ending.

 

This story has a lot of interesting lessons for Christian believers. And we are not terribly offended by 'dog' terminology. I hope you see our point.

 

I would like to see this Rainbows, Unicorns and Pet Puppies translation of the bible.

 

Matthew 15:22-28 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

 

So first he ignores her, then he lets his disciples try and get rid of her, when they fail, he insults her, and only gives in when she acknowledges that her people are subservient to the wonderful Jews.

 

New King James Version uses the term "little dogs." I don't think that makes it any less of an insult.

 

 

 

There is the huge time difference of 2000 years to think about. We are still amazed by things said about blacks just 50 years ago. I am of an opinion that this narrative as not as offensive as some people make it out to be.

[centauri]

Jesus called the Canaanite women a 'cute puppy'. It was not a derogatory term.

Please cite the translation where Jesus called this woman a cute puppy rather than a dog.

 

Where do Canaanites rank in the social pecking order and how does a curse transform them into "cute puppies" rather than second class humans?

 

Gen 9:25

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

This was another one of my non serious comment. I thought people would just roll their eyes and attack back with fury of political correctness.

 

But it is serious. Some people take offense at this exchange between Canaanite woman and Jesus. But in reality, what happened may be quite OK. Canaanites are looked down upon by religious Jews and they ARE often called 'dogs'. Quite derogatory.

Jesus was supposed to be a religious Jew.

 

So when this Canaanite woman became nuisance she also half expected cold shoulder from Jesus. But Jesus engaged her and said 'It is not right to throw children's food to pet puppies, you know.' Jesus not not calling her a canine. But there is that resonance of derogatory term she had been called by Jews. ( Jews may take offence and say, 'You are calling us little children? We are smarter than you, Jesus from nowhere! ' )

 

Anyhow, the Canaanite woman was desperate. She wanted the healing for her daughter. So she quickly responded to Jesus' game. She retorted, playing along, 'Sir, shouldn't pet puppies get some bread crumbs from the table?' Her response brought a happy laughter from Jesus. " Woman, you have great faith.' A praise. Can you imagine that? Anyhow, her daughter recovered. And happy ending.

That’s quite a tale.

You’ve managed to create a version of Jesus that pleases your senses, where everything is bunnies and roses.

Since you seem to believe Jesus is God, it was Jesus that gave orders to exterminate the Canaanites.

Deut 20:16-17

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

 

This doesn’t sound like a game to me nor does it sound like Jesus thinks they are cute puppies.

 

This story has a lot of interesting lessons for Christian believers. And we are not terribly offended by 'dog' terminology. I hope you see our point.

What I see is that you’ll do anything to rationalize your beliefs.

[JayL]

You’ve got this proof that will convince us to believe and save our souls from eternal damnation, and you won’t give it to us!!??!!

 

What kind of a Christian are you?

 

What does Jesus have to say about this?

 

Have mercy on us po’ sinners, puhleese!

 

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

Jay is obviously responsible for our souls now. He better get busy with that proof.

 

 

 

 

It is better to laugh and let it go.

[par4dcourse]

JayL said

Well, I am somewhat familiar with physics. And a couple of years ago, I came up with a proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics. I showed the proof to 2 PhD scientists and they were quite impressed. ( One in chemistry and one in meteorology ). So was my cousin who is an M.D.

 

Now he says

 

But I have no hope of understanding. Because I couldn't even get thru his incompleteness theorem. I am just a layman probably like most people here.

 

How does a mere layman devise a "proof of God's existence based on physics and mathematics."