Support NeoGAF

[FunkyMunkey]

Why should you believe in things not supported by evidence? That seems like you are asking for trouble if you ask me. Why are you and others proud of circular logic and defend the inability to rationalize the things you are claiming to be true?

People that have this type of thinking should be sent to a mental ward.

Why do people believe in karma? Luck? Purpose? Wishing well onto others?

What? The entire rationalization behind faith is that you can't hold evidence to it. You are upset about its very definition.

As for your final comment, that's a fairly offense thing to say in a thread that is for people who hold faith(christianity). I'm honestly not sure what you're doing here if you believe that anyone who holds faith in anything should be sent to a mental ward. The word faith is in the thread title ffs.

 

[KtSlime]

Why do people believe in karma? Luck? Purpose? Wishing well onto others?

What? The entire rationalization behind faith is that you can't hold evidence to it. You are upset about its very definition.

As for your final comment, that's a fairly offense thing to say in a thread that is for people who hold faith(christianity). I'm honestly not sure what you're doing here if you believe that anyone who holds faith in anything should be sent to a mental ward. The word faith is in the thread title ffs.

Do you think members of the WBC belong in a psych ward, or are what they doing reasonable and cool?

I am in here because I want to know exactly what I asked, why have faith without evidence, and what good does faith without evidence have.

Oh and people that have faith in karma and luck as actual belief systems are messed in the head too; however most people use karma to refer to the golden rule, and luck to refer to a positive opportunity.

Oh, here's a better one that hopefully won't get all tangled up in the fact that you and the WBC share the same religion:

Islamic suicide bombers, shouldn't they get a chance to see a psychiatrist?

 

[hellclerk]

Why should you believe in things not supported by evidence? That seems like you are asking for trouble if you ask me. Why are you and others proud of circular logic and defend the inability to rationalize the things you are claiming to be true?

People that have this type of thinking should be sent to a mental ward.

Oh, and the Universe existing is evidence that the Universe exists, not that there is evidence of a watch maker.

Well I'm sorry Commander Spock, that's just how we humans are. I know we don't seem logical to you, but sometimes we have to throw out logic to go along with what feels right. It's part of being human. Now excuse me while I go fight a man in a campy green alien costume in an ambiguous rocky desert after the senseless death of a nameless ensign.

What you want to know can't be answered by scientific argument, if that's what you want (although there are studies that show the positive brain effects of faith on believers compared to ordinary individuals). What I have used to argue my point is poetic metaphor and simile, something you may or may not have the background to engage, which is fine, but that's why my last post went right over your head.

The other issue is that you already seem to have the answer, which is that people who have faith are crazy, and so any amount of my arguing otherwise won't change your mind. So if you want a "real" argument, go talk to a sociologist working on this stuff. Metaphysical constructs such as faith can only best be explained through poetic devices, and if that's not good enough for you, too bad. You don't use Newtonian physics for quantum scale bodies.

 

[TaeOH]

I am in here because I want to know exactly what I asked, why have faith without evidence, and what good does faith without evidence have.

There is tons of evidence though, that is how many (not all) come to Christ. There is evidence that the bible text we have has come down to us through the ages accurately. There is archeological evidence of the historical accuracy of the text proved over and over again. There is evidence that Jesus's coming, death and resurrection was prophesied prior to his coming. There is evidence in the witness of those who knew Christ personally and that they died teaching something that they themselves did not understand while he was with them.

There is tons of evidence for those seeking. There are many books written on this evidence. There are many books written refuting each individual claim too. This is why I think your asking of the question is not genuine. I did not think it in the other thread and by your continued line of questioning I still don't think it is genuine.

As I said in the other thread, it really comes down to a question between you and God. If you are bold enough, why don't you pray to God to show you the truth.

 

[tfur]

And comparing faith in god to math is such a bad analogy that i'm not going to delve into why as it should be glaringly obvious.

You do not have to believe something to understand the concepts. Descartes used mathematics in his proof of the existence of God.

 

[KtSlime]

There is tons of evidence though, that is how many (not all) come to Christ. There is evidence that the bible text we have has come down to us through the ages accurately. There is archeological evidence of the historical accuracy of the text proved over and over again. There is evidence that Jesus's coming, death and resurrection was prophesied prior to his coming. There is evidence in the witness of those who knew Christ personally and that they died teaching something that they themselves did not understand while he was with them.

There is tons of evidence for those seeking. There are many books written on this evidence. There are many books written refuting each individual claim too. This is why I think your asking of the question is not genuine. I did not think it in the other thread and by your continued line of questioning I still don't think it is genuine.

As I said in the other thread, it really comes down to a question between you and God. If you are bold enough, why don't you pray to God to show you the truth.

"Evidence". The evidence that shows the texts as being without very many errors over a vast period of time is not evidence of the accuracy of the original claims which were first written well after the death of "Jesus" and his original followers.

Prophecies are not "evidence", however, the prophecy you are likely talking about is about the birth of Samson a nazarite, not Jesus a Nazarene. Although I don't blame you for that misunderstanding, Matthew and Luke went out of their way to try and justify Jesus as the "Son of God", when it really is just a title picked in opposition the Caesar.

The "evidence" of the witnesses is nothing more than hearsay that was communicated primarily among the under-educated until the point they gained some cultural traction and became written down.

The evidence you are claiming exists is the same evidence for Krishna, or for ghosts, or alien abductions, for the lost city of atlantis. It amounts to nothing, and is really only accepted by the lazy, and uneducated.

I could pray for a sign, but you are assuming I didn't already when I was much younger and impressionable. However, if I never got a sign you would just claim I was putting God on the spot and he doesn't need any accountability from me, so has no need to show me proof. Same tired arguments.

doomed1: why not believe in Tom Bombadale, if it is simply a matter of being poetic?

 

[TaeOH]

"Evidence". The evidence that shows the texts as being without very many errors over a vast period of time is not evidence of the accuracy of the original claims which were first written well after the death of "Jesus" and his original followers.

Prophecies are not "evidence", however, the prophecy you are likely talking about is about the birth of Samson a nazarite, not Jesus a Nazarene. Although I don't blame you for that misunderstanding, Matthew and Luke went out of their way to try and justify Jesus as the "Son of God", when it really is just a title picked in opposition the Caesar.

The "evidence" of the witnesses is nothing more than hearsay that was communicated primarily among the under-educated until the point they gained some cultural traction and became written down.

The evidence you are claiming exists is the same evidence for Krishna, or for ghosts, or alien abductions, for the lost city of atlantis. It amounts to nothing, and is really only accepted by the lazy, and uneducated.

I could pray for a sign, but you are assuming I didn't already when I was much younger and impressionable. However, if I never got a sign you would just claim I was putting God on the spot and he doesn't need any accountability from me, so has no need to show me proof. Same tired arguments.

doomed1: why not believe in Tom Bombadale, if it is simply a matter of being poetic?

I did not tell you to pray for a sign, I told for you to pray to be shown the truth.

And you have read many of the books I mentioned on both sides of the argument and have made your choice. Which I why your claim of seeking is not genuine and you are just posting in here to harass. As no answer you get for your questions will change your mind.

You are just as bad a Phelps, accept that your "God hates Gays" is "I hate Christians".

 

[Orayn]

You are just as bad a Phelps, accept that your "God hates Gays" is "I hate Christians".

1. That's an unwarranted ad hominem that doesn't really address ivedoneyourmom's post at all.
2. ivedoneyourmom is clearly looking for tangible evidence, and bringing up various reasons why he hasn't encountered any and doesn't expect to. The least you could do is fess up and say that it's a matter of faith, but you choose instead to dismiss handwave his questions and try to maintain the high ground.

 

[Aristion]

"Evidence". The evidence that shows the texts as being without very many errors over a vast period of time is not evidence of the accuracy of the original claims which were first written well after the death of "Jesus" and his original followers.

Prophecies are not "evidence", however, the prophecy you are likely talking about is about the birth of Samson a nazarite, not Jesus a Nazarene. Although I don't blame you for that misunderstanding, Matthew and Luke went out of their way to try and justify Jesus as the "Son of God", when it really is just a title picked in opposition the Caesar.

The "evidence" of the witnesses is nothing more than hearsay that was communicated primarily among the under-educated until the point they gained some cultural traction and became written down.

The evidence you are claiming exists is the same evidence for Krishna, or for ghosts, or alien abductions, for the lost city of atlantis. It amounts to nothing, and is really only accepted by the lazy, and uneducated.

I could pray for a sign, but you are assuming I didn't already when I was much younger and impressionable. However, if I never got a sign you would just claim I was putting God on the spot and he doesn't need any accountability from me, so has no need to show me proof. Same tired arguments.

doomed1: why not believe in Tom Bombadale, if it is simply a matter of being poetic?

Let's be honest, if you went to Hell and aboded there for 20 years, you'd claim that it's more likely that it's a 20-year hallucination than the fact that you're actually in Hell.

There's no amount of evidence that would convince you that there is a God. Absolutely none.

BTW the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 about a Nazarene isn't referring to Samson, as the prophecy isn't found in the Old Testament. You'll probably immediately assume that Matthew made up the prophecy, but you'd want to research the discussion on that.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I did not tell you to pray for a sign, I told for you to pray to be shown the truth.

And you have read many of the books I mentioned on both sides of the argument and have made your choice. Which I why your claim of seeking is not genuine and you are just posting in here to harass. As no answer you get for your questions will change your mind.

You are just as bad a Phelps, accept that your "God hates Gays" is "I hate Christians".

You're committing a Logical Fallacy, in this case you're using an Ad hominem and thus your argument is invalid.

 

[KtSlime]

Let's be honest, if you went to Hell and aboded there for 20 years, you'd claim that it's more likely that it's a 20-year hallucination than the fact that you're actually in Hell.

There's no amount of evidence that would convince you that there is a God. Absolutely none.

BTW the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 about a Nazarene isn't referring to Samson, as the prophecy isn't found in the Old Testament. You'll probably immediately assume that Matthew made up the prophecy, but you'd want to research the discussion on that.

People don't hallucinate after they are dead, but yeah - great idol you are worshiping, sending a guy that simply wants to educate and do no harm to hell.

You mean there is no amount of evidence that would convince me that YOUR brand of god exists. Yeah, that's probably a pretty good statement, but that's only because you and I have different definitions of the word evidence - mine being evidence, and yours being fairy tales.

Funny thing about prophecies, they actually have to occur before the event happens. I was talking about evidence of what Matthew calls a prophecy actually being prophesied before the birth of Jesus. You know, maybe something in the Old Testament, like Judges 13?

You're making the claim that Jesus is the son of "God", show me the light, I'd like to know where it was prophesied, the arrival of JC that is. Oh, and it has to be older than the New Testament.

Thanks, look forward to your response.

 

[TaeOH]

You're committing a Logical Fallacy, in this case you're using an Ad hominem and thus your argument is invalid.

You are assuming I am in a debate with him. I am not. I am blatantly calling his attempts at "understanding" fake and comparing him to a notorious bigot. I don't think I can get any more insulting than that.

 

[hellclerk]

doomed1: why not believe in Tom Bombadale, if it is simply a matter of being poetic?

Sure, why not? Seriously man, at this point, you're either trolling or denser than a neutron star. I've laid it right out in a way for a non-believer, not to believe, but rather to understand, and if you're still there scratching your head, well then too bad. I tried, but I'm only human. Kindly GTFO the thread if you don't have anything more constructive to contribute.

 

[Aristion]

People don't hallucinate after they are dead, but yeah

Umm, I never said people did. I said that if you actually died and went to Hell, then you would assume that you were still alive and hallucinating. That's because no amount of evidence will ever convince you of God's existence.

- great idol you are worshiping, sending a guy that simply wants to educate and do no harm to hell.

You mean there is no amount of evidence that would convince me that YOUR brand of god exists. Yeah, that's probably a pretty good statement, but that's only because you and I have different definitions of the word evidence - mine being evidence, and yours being fairy tales.

Way to dodge around the issue.

Funny thing about prophecies, they actually have to occur before the event happens. I was talking about evidence of what Matthew calls a prophecy actually being prophesied before the birth of Jesus. You know, maybe something in the Old Testament, like Judges 13?

You're making the claim that Jesus is the son of "God", show me the light, I'd like to know where it was prophesied, the arrival of JC that is. Oh, and it has to be older than the New Testament.

Thanks, look forward to your response.

Matthew 2:23 doesn't refer to Judges 13. Matthew is referring about the prophets (plural) foretelling that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. Again, look at any commentary of Matthew and the issues are laid out and answered satisfactorily.

I can give you the prophecy, but then you'll just claim that the Apostles copied from the source in order to fabricate their stories. Also, if it's a vague prophecy, you'll just claim that I'm grasping at straws.

Similarly if the Gospels are textually harmonious, then the authors obviously copied from one another, but if they contain variances in their accounts then they're hopelessly contradictory and we can never trust them.

There's no pleasing you.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

You are assuming I am in a debate with him. I am not. I am blatantly calling his attempts at "understanding" fake and comparing him to a notorious bigot. I don't think I can get any more insulting than that.

Understood.

Hopefully by my comments you have seen that I am attempting to understand the Theistic position. In doing so I am proposing some questions for Christians to answer. If you feel like it, I would love to get your responses (and others as well), if you don't feel comfortable thanks for your time.

1: What evidence (if any) persuaded you that there was an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator?

2: What evidence (if any) could be presented that would change your mind about this creators existence?

3: Where do you stand on the concept of original sin? Is it 'just' to hold humanity responsible for the 'sins' of our ancestors? If so, why?

4: Is evolution a product of God or purely a natural process? Does evolutionary theory ring true for you as a theist, and if so, where does God fit in with this theory?

5: What is your concept of hell? Is it the traditional 'fire and brimstone' realm of torment, or the eternal absence from God's grace? In either case, what circumstances would cause someone to end up in this place?

 

[KtSlime]

Umm, I never said people did. I said that if you actually died and went to Hell, then you would assume that you were still alive and hallucinating. That's because no amount of evidence will ever convince you of God's existence.

What, even the all powerful "God" can't prove his existence to me, must not be all that omnipotent

Way to dodge around the issue.

Not dodging, simply saying that I take no issue with people believing in a god that started the big bang, only with people that believe there has ever been a meaningful interaction between it and the World

Matthew 2:23 doesn't refer to Judges 13. Matthew is referring about the prophets (plural) foretelling that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. Again, look at any commentary of Matthew and the issues are laid out and answered satisfactorily.

So where are these writings so that I can verify they predate Matthews writings?

I can give you the prophecy, but then you'll just claim that the Apostles copied from the source in order to fabricate their stories. Also, if it's a vague prophecy, you'll just claim that I'm grasping at straws.

Yeah, it's probably best if you don't try to support your claims with facts.

Similarly if the Gospels are textually harmonious, then the authors obviously copied from one another, but if they contain variances in their accounts then they're hopelessly contradictory and we can never trust them.

What happens when the texts are not harmonious? Like they have conflicting accounts and dates, and also conflict with established history?

There's no pleasing you.

Probably right about that. Sorry it's not fair of me to try and educate you - I've probably done more harm than good so I will not be posting in this thread any longer.

If you want to post that evidence I will give it a look over. But I'll stay out of your way so you guys can continue to post wallpapers about how Jesus rocks, and stories about how you saw the sun rise one day and just knew there was a creator, and the like.

One more thought - it would do a lot of good in my eyes, and the eyes of others if you were to speak out against those advocating teaching creationism and the fixity of species.

Answers inline.

Peace out.

 

[TaeOH]

Understood.

Hopefully by my comments you have seen that I am attempting to understand the Theistic position. In doing so I am proposing some questions for Christians to answer. If you feel like it, I would love to get your responses (and others as well), if you don't feel comfortable thanks for your time.

1: What evidence (if any) persuaded you that there was an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator?

2: What evidence (if any) could be presented that would change your mind about this creators existence?

3: Where do you stand on the concept of original sin? Is it 'just' to hold humanity responsible for the 'sins' of our ancestors? If so, why?

4: Is evolution a product of God or purely a natural process? Does evolutionary theory ring true for you as a theist, and if so, where does God fit in with this theory?

5: What is your concept of hell? Is it the traditional 'fire and brimstone' realm of torment, or the eternal absence from God's grace? In either case, what circumstances would cause someone to end up in this place?

Wow. There is a lot of theology in those questions. I don't have time to respond to this now and I am no theologian, so I do not even know if you would find my answers helpful and much of it would be personal and some of that I may not wish to share on a internet message board, even much less, Atheist GAF. I am still working out what I believe on a few of those questions.

 

[ghst]

You are assuming I am in a debate with him. I am not. I am blatantly calling his attempts at "understanding" fake and comparing him to a notorious bigot. I don't think I can get any more insulting than that.

Sure, why not? Seriously man, at this point, you're either trolling or denser than a neutron star. I've laid it right out in a way for a non-believer, not to believe, but rather to understand, and if you're still there scratching your head, well then too bad. I tried, but I'm only human. Kindly GTFO the thread if you don't have anything more constructive to contribute.

you guys sure know how to instil us heathens with the light of the lord.

 

[JGS]

Thanks for the response JGS, I might put the responses and follow up questions back into number designations so it's easier to see what is in response to particular question. I also want you to know that I will do my best not to be offensive. The reason I say this is because I seem to reach a point where the responder feels like I'm attacking God and thus attacking someone really dear to them, and the conversation shuts down. Just let me know if I step over the line (in terms of what you feel comfortable with).

I appreciate that, but I understand disagreement & that's fine by me. You can even be insulting although, in opposition to the whole turn the other cheek, I tend to match it. I try to avoid that in this thread though. I will say that my trust level with atheist on the board is usually at a minimal, so sometimes I jump to conclusions and apologize ahead of time and will do so again when called on it.

1: So I might make a couple of points here. The first sentence begins with the acknowledgement that there is evidence (other than the odds thing), is it evidence that I as an Atheist could look at and acknowledge as evidence as well? In terms of odds, I hold the the opposite view and thus this argument would be hard to class as evidence in any sense. I think the odds of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator are far lower the life arising from natural, observable processes.

Sure it is. However, whether you believe that or not is a different matter. For example, creation itself is evidence of a creator. It is not just stuff and it's not just molecular arrangement. The things life possible are impossible without assistance. Nothing science has actually shown (Rather than assumed) shows anything otherwise.

In terms life of starting (Abiogenesis) the most intellectually honest thing for me to say is, we don't know how it started... Now in saying that, there is work by scientists that seems to be on the path that leads to Abiogenesis naturally. The formation of organic amino acids, often described as "the building blocks of life", from inorganic chemicals is an interesting scientific model but we just don't currently know the actual first formation of 'life'.

I don't think it will ever be known since it doesn't exist. Frankly, I'm surprised that scientist have not created a life form yet, much less an actual creature. However, the two aren't related. Knowing how something was made does not mean that it is possible in the much more complex, unpredictable world of nature.

Now you seemed to be implying that we haven't seen/observed Speciation other than within 'pictures or essays'. The amount of evidence that demonstrates the splitting and formation of new species is overwhelming and as such, is classed as part of the evolutionary theory (ie, it's a fact). I can provide some basic examples if you like.

There has never been evidence of a shift between animals. For example, a fish has never been proven to be anything other than a fish. I do believe in speciation within kinds and I know those are verifiable, but that's a much different thing than how people deduce most life forms came into existence. I believe those Darwin bumper stickers explain it nicely. Well, I don't believe that.

2: Fantastic response, and all anyone can ask of someone. I'm the same, my position would change overnight if there was proof (based on evidence) of God's existence. So why do we hold completely opposing viewpoints? For me it's about the burden of proof (yes, monotonous I know lol), and the burden seems to lie with those making a claim, any claim, in this case the existence of God as described in the bible. You have in essence committed a logical fallacy, in this case 'an argument from ignorance' (do not take offence to this, I'm not calling you ignorant, I am pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument), as you are holding a specific belief as true because we don't know that it isn't true.

I'm not offended, but honestly I never understand where people get the idea that we don't know it isn't true. It's as true as the idea of how life started without him so we both are guilty of logical fallacies. There is no proof in what I don't believe in. I don't dismiss anything. I simply choose between the two most logical options and abiogenesis is far from logical except on the basis of NEVER considering God in the equation. I get that science needs that but life is more than science experiments and it's not able to prove a lot of things we know to be true.

In terms of what would count as proof against God's existence, they are interesting pieces of evidence that you require. The biblical conspiracy thing seems strange to me, what sort of cover up would do it for you?

Well, God not existing would be the biggest conspiracy. Nearly all of the writers of the Bible claim to hhave spoken directly with God. They received signs, prophecies, or outright miracles from God. All scripture is supposed to be inspired of God meaning that the entire Bible's authorship is based on Godly standards even if written by men. Basically, 40 writers over 1,500 years (Even the worst skeptic on the planet would have to admit the Bible was written over at least a few hundred years, still no small feat) would have all had to conspire to create something that was phony fron the get-go. There has NEVER been a conspiracy that big EVER.

Add to that the millions of people who didn't write the Bible who were affected by it. Not a hint of dispute, no real disagreement, & no real hint of a conspiracy theory...until centuries later.

I use the word conspiracy because that's exactly what it would need to be when skeptics shrug off portions of the Bible as phony just because. That's a tough thing to pull off and it proves to me that they really aren't as intelligent as they like to think they are at least in terms of the Bible. Keeep in mind that this is not an argument concerning I believe the Bible because the Bible says so. This is about fitness and consistency of text and there has never been a book written that does as well as the Bible- fiction or not.

If scientists are able to recreate the process of Abiogenesis in a lab, that wouldn't be good enough for you? Where else are they going to do it? If scientists were able to recreate the conditions of the early earth and provide the raw inorganic chemicals that were present, and then life arose from those elements...That would be proof, undeniable evidence for the origin of life on earth. Can you explain why that wouldn't be the case?

There is no way to do it. Again, it's impossible. There's no reason for me to change my view on it. Of course if you're saying they will just sit back and let nature takes it's course, there's no question I would be impressed by that since the impossible happened.

However, they have to start with the building blocks and then figure out ways to create a variety of life from that all while letting nature take care of it (I'm even willing to see if they could speed up the process). If they can do that, then my faith may be shaken a bit. But again, it's impossible so I'm not particularly worried.

I will say again that even if I'm wrong about Christianity (I'm not but theoretically), this still would never change my view that a creator is the most logical choice between that and nothing.

3: I don't understand this response, sorry JGS. So 'Sin' is genetic, what does that mean?
Is original sin, the apparent sin that we inherited from Adam/Eve real? If so, how does the death of a man abolish those sins?

We inherited sin- sort of by adaptation. If Adam and Eve had kids prior to sinning, they would have been perfect kids. They didn't so we are born in the image of our parents. Sin is a justice standard. because it would not be fair or healthy for an imperfect person to live forever alongside a perfect person, the standard is imperfection = death.

As a greedy banker, I look at things in financial terms. It's the difference between renting and owning. Because we don't measure up, a sacrifice/payment must be given to God in order to cover over the sin. The Jews had animal sacrifices but they were good for a limited time. There was no point in sacrificing humans since they could cover the debt either. We would have been paying rent for our sins forever with billions of more animals slaughtered

All of that to say that, basically, only a perfect man could replace what was lost (BTW, if Jesus were God, this sacrifice would be overkill. Ditto if he stayed an angel which is why he was a man.). Jesus "purchased" our sins by basically making it possible for us to be perfect again.

5: WOW, was not expecting that response, you're the first Christian I have talked to who hasn't described Hell as a place of torment and that non-believers will burn in that place, I'm glad to hear that you have the moral compass to dismiss a being that would do that to your fellow humans if it were true.

It really isn't. It's not a case of me closing my ears to something I don't want to believe. It simply is not a teaching. There has always been a teaching of eternal torment in other religions ) and after a particular time after 1st century, but not Biblically. Admittedly, some Jews may have believed in it too which kind of explains Jesus parable about Lazurus.

My personal opinion is that it's a traditional teaching and people have a hard time letting it go. To me they should because most believers don't actually believe it (By their deeds at least) and it is simply not in keeping with the warning God has consistently given. Something as sever as ETERNAL TORMENT would need to be stated incessanrtly across several books in both the OT and NT. There is simply no way in my mind it exists and there's a lot more reasons than what I've stated.

This also opens up more questions for me. Where do non-believers (such as myself) go when we die? Where do believers go? So if there is no Hell, is its dichotomy (Heaven) not a place either?

Everyone that dies goes to the same place. The difference is what happens afterward. Non-believers would simply stay dead which was their intention all along. There's no reason to go anywhere else. As for believers, I've stated, this is the part that I'm most unfamiliar with because the Bible definitely mentions 2 outcomes - heaven or earth with the OT focusing on Earth & the NT focusing on heaven & Revelation kind of including both. I don't get it. There are some relgions who have cracked the code supposedly, but I'm still researching where I would be. I tend not to think about it too much though because I'll be fine in either case.

There we go, hopefully you find something to chew on. I would also really enjoy some questions from you as well JGS, is there anything that you would like to know about my beliefs? Hopefully we can continue this interesting conversation.

This is going to sound horrible, but I don't actually think about other people's beliefs enough to know what to ask. I'm always interested when people explain it (I lurk the Muslim threads for example). I think that tends to be ingrained in Christians. The teaching actually discourages learning about other faiths or challenges to ours (This is where the false idea that we hate science because we reject science's stance on how life got here).

I stay open minded, but still lack the ability to ask. I will when question come up though- promise. Feel free to explain though!

 

[mokeyjoe]

(This is where the false idea that we hate science because we reject science's stance on how life got here).

I stay open minded, but still lack the ability to ask. I will when question come up though- promise. Feel free to explain though!

If you're talking about evolution then that's not true. Most major Christian denominations agree with the scientific evidence. A literal interpretation of Genesis has been frowned upon since the early days of Christianity and only really came about after the Reformation and has subsequently become fashionable mostly in the US due to the largely puritanical heritage.

There has never been evidence of a shift between animals. For example, a fish has never been proven to be anything other than a fish. I do believe in speciation within kinds and I know those are verifiable, but that's a much different thing than how people deduce most life forms came into existence.

I don't want to turn this into another interminable evolution discussion, but there are no such thing as 'kinds', it's a meaningless term, and there is widespread observable, genetic and fossil evidence for speciation and there is no 'stoppage mechanism' to prevent species from taking on wildly differing traits and being, in your subjective observation, a different 'kind'.

It's interesting you select fish as they are one of the vaguer definitions in biology. For instance whales, seals and even hippos used to be considered fish by scholars due to physical characteristics and other considerations. Today many animals popularly described as fish, such as lungfish and coelacanths are more closely related to mammals than other 'fish' as they represent an older branch divergent to other families, and one that tetrapods are descended from. The boundaries between species are less clear than you may think, after all what makes a 'fish' a fish? As genetics show, physical characteristics are a poor guide.

I don't need or want you to subscribe to evolution as a natural process, it's your choice, but please don't misrepresent facts.

 

[JGS]

If you're talking about evolution then that's not true. Most major Christian denominations agree with the scientific evidence. A literal interpretation of Genesis has been frowned upon since the early days of Christianity and only really came about after the Reformation and has subsequently become fashionable mostly in the US.

I'm not talking about evolution.

 

[mokeyjoe]

I'm not talking about evolution.

Fine, I wasn't sure. I didn't want all Christians tarred with the same brush.

 

[The_Squirrel_Menace]

There's something that I cannot understand.

Honest.


Why, people, turned Christians (this could apply to Muslims perhaps not Jews because it is a older religion) back then? Why Emperors, Kings, Peasants, basically the people that lived at that time converted themselves to Christianity?

Weren't they happy with their faith, their many gods, know what I mean? What, how, they [the priests, what ever you call them] managed to convert so many people. I see this like Fashion.. It's so "in" to be Christian, do it too!

Say, I'm a casual joe living in 140 AD over in Italy, or whatever place Christianity is spreading. I pray daily the many divinities that shaped our society and lives for ages. Someone come up to me saying that I should convert to Christianity because it is the only true religion and their God is the real one. Why would I?

 

[Bidermaier]

Why should you believe in things not supported by evidence? That seems like you are asking for trouble if you ask me. .

What is the point of believing in facts?

There's something that I cannot understand.

Honest.


Why, people, turned Christians (this could apply to Muslims perhaps not Jews because it is a older religion) back then? Why Emperors, Kings, Peasants, basically the people that lived at that time converted themselves to Christianity?

Weren't they happy with their faith, their many gods, know what I mean? What, how, they [the priests, what ever you call them] managed to convert so many people. I see this like Fashion.. It's so "in" to be Christian, do it too!

Say, I'm a casual joe living in 140 AD over in Italy, or whatever place Christianity is spreading. I pray daily the many divinities that shaped our society and lives for ages. Someone come up to me saying that I should convert to Christianity because it is the only true religion and their God is the real one. Why would I?

Because you are in the roman empire, a country heavily influenced by the greek culture, and christianity owes a lot to the greek philosophy. Christianity just made more sense.

 

[Shanadeus]

There's something that I cannot understand.

Honest.


Why, people, turned Christians (this could apply to Muslims perhaps not Jews because it is a older religion) back then? Why Emperors, Kings, Peasants, basically the people that lived at that time converted themselves to Christianity?

Weren't they happy with their faith, their many gods, know what I mean? What, how, they [the priests, what ever you call them] managed to convert so many people. I see this like Fashion.. It's so "in" to be Christian, do it too!

Say, I'm a casual joe living in 140 AD over in Italy, or whatever place Christianity is spreading. I pray daily the many divinities that shaped our society and lives for ages. Someone come up to me saying that I should convert to Christianity because it is the only true religion and their God is the real one. Why would I?

Wasn't it just a matter of politics?

 

[sphagnum]

There's something that I cannot understand.

Honest.


Why, people, turned Christians (this could apply to Muslims perhaps not Jews because it is a older religion) back then? Why Emperors, Kings, Peasants, basically the people that lived at that time converted themselves to Christianity?

Weren't they happy with their faith, their many gods, know what I mean? What, how, they [the priests, what ever you call them] managed to convert so many people. I see this like Fashion.. It's so "in" to be Christian, do it too!

Say, I'm a casual joe living in 140 AD over in Italy, or whatever place Christianity is spreading. I pray daily the many divinities that shaped our society and lives for ages. Someone come up to me saying that I should convert to Christianity because it is the only true religion and their God is the real one. Why would I?

Christianity was an inherently charitable and communalistic religion, which appealed to the poor and dispossessed (as well as a certain intellectuals) in the urban areas of the empire - it took much longer, for example, for the farmers on the outskirts to convert, hence where the term "pagan" comes from (pagan in Latin means "rustic").

No, people weren't satisfied with their gods. Why should they be? They didn't do anything. They didn't really promise anything either, certainly not eternal life. They were distant and had their roots in antiquity. You could get close to them through a mystery cult, but those were rather exclusive. The imperial ruler cult was just some state religion that nobody actually cared about. Christianity both felt recent (as in, you had a bunch of people running around claiming they'd seen Jesus himself do miracles, or claiming they studied under people who had seen Jesus) and was universal. It provided everyone, regardless of background, with a simple and appealing message of both love on earth and hope for heaven.

Even so, it only took off after Constantine. Prior to him, only something like 10% of the empire was probably Christianized. Once he adopted it (most likely simply because he realized it could be a unifying force due to its universal nature, but also because he probably DID believe in some sort of unitary, possibly sun-themed god considering the religious beliefs of his parents) it became in vogue for other politicians to adopt it to get on his good side, church members moved up in ranks, etc. until Christianity became the official religion.

 

[mokeyjoe]

There's something that I cannot understand.

Honest.


Why, people, turned Christians (this could apply to Muslims perhaps not Jews because it is a older religion) back then? Why Emperors, Kings, Peasants, basically the people that lived at that time converted themselves to Christianity?

Weren't they happy with their faith, their many gods, know what I mean? What, how, they [the priests, what ever you call them] managed to convert so many people. I see this like Fashion.. It's so "in" to be Christian, do it too!

Say, I'm a casual joe living in 140 AD over in Italy, or whatever place Christianity is spreading. I pray daily the many divinities that shaped our society and lives for ages. Someone come up to me saying that I should convert to Christianity because it is the only true religion and their God is the real one. Why would I?

There was a certain fashionable and anti-establishment flavour to early European Christianity, quite different from the older middle Eastern Orthodox church (which would eventually spread up through Russia) but remained a cult of sorts. The real turning point was when Constantine the Great legalized and later converted to Christianity, primarily for political reasons (although his mother was also a Christian). From then on the Emperor had a say in religious matters, and could justify the exercise of power in religious terms, which is useful. Later Christianity became the religion of Rome and other religions were banned. Rome had a large, now theocratic, empire and therefore pagan religions were considered heretical and the Christian church was forced upon its subjects.

It wasn't an instant switch, it took centuries. In many places the resulting religion was for a long time a mixture of the two, you were both Christian (as a citizen of Rome) and pagan (your traditional beliefs), and even today many Christian practices have a pagan flavour. The word 'Easter' for instance comes from Eostre, a pagan goddess. And certainly in the UK a few pagan traditions remain, May Day celebrations most notably.

Further reading:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

What is the point of believing in facts?

This just might be the worst thing I've read in this thread, truly shameful.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

There was a story today of a man being stoned to death, with the accused invoking its reference in the Bible as some kind of justification. Inevitably, some are going to use this as ammo to attack religion. What I'm curious about is whenever topics like stoning or similarly controversial elements within the Bible, specifically the OT, are invoked, the most common rebuttal is that 'Well that's the OT - we as Christians follow the NT'. I interpret that as an attempt to distance one's Christian faith from the topic, suggesting that it's almost a different God in the OT. The NT doesn't have the emphasis of such stuff, but the question isn't what text or message is more ethically questionable, but the unavoidable truth would be (whilst the text is different) that it is still God. For example,

Q. You know sinners would be stoned to death in the Bible right?
A. That's the OT bro, not the NT. I'm Christian.
Q. Is it not the same God?
A. Yea.
Q. So you're God ordained X to be stoned to death because he slept another man's wife?

I think there are better ways of tackling these type of questions, but the response of trying to distance and subsequently distinguish scriptures as if it doesn't relate to your identity or notion of God is is disingenuous in my opinion. Also, related to this. I'm aware of the verse and context behind John chapter 8, verse 7. This is one of those examples where I'd like to ask how has the interpretation surrounding capital punishment in Christianity changed since the 17/18th century, and how does it now reconcile with the capital punishments ordained by God in the original covenant? Would you as a Christian define stoning's for sinful acts now as evil considering the above? Most would say yes, but some (Jew/Christian/Muslim) would hesitate realising they could be blaspheming.

 

[BocoDragon]

Interesting questions Meus. I'm not Christian, but I was talking about the meaning behind some OT stories with a Christian friend of mine and he said "and then Jesus came along and changed everything". The subject then quickly shifted.. But that stuck in my head..

Does Christianity actually say that Jesus/NT changed everything in regard to the OT? I could see that being just a "liberal Christianity" rationalization because things in the OT seem a little uncomfortable in light of modern values.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Interesting questions Meus. I'm not Christian, but I was talking about the meaning behind some OT stories with a Christian friend of mine and he said "and then Jesus came along and changed everything". The subject then quickly shifted.. But that stuck in my head..

Does Christianity actually say that Jesus/NT changed everything in regard to the OT? I could see that being just a "liberal Christianity" rationalization because things in the OT seem a little uncomfortable in light of modern values.

Scripture isn't defined on modern day values, or arguably man's values. I had this discussion with someone else once. If scripture was based on society's values, then you'd have 1000 different slants of Christianity in a town with a 1000 people. I've already mentioned a few personal examples with some people writing their own scripture in their mind it seems, trying to juggle their Christian identity with their lifestyles. There are somethings you cannot reconcile the two between - certain scientific theories and knowledge is perhaps the best known example of this. In regards to the above question, we were boiling heretics in oil a few centuries ago and I'm sure some would have called that fine as they stood outside their local Church. Now, that's incomprehensible.

 

[Shanadeus]

Scripture isn't defined on modern day values, or arguably man's values. I had this discussion with someone else once. If scripture was based on society's values, then you'd have 1000 different slants of Christianity in a town with a 1000 people. I've already mentioned a few personal examples with some people writing their own scripture in their mind it seems, trying to juggle their Christian identity with their lifestyles. There are somethings you cannot reconcile the two between - certain scientific theories and knowledge is perhaps the best known example of this. In regards to the above question, we were boiling heretics in oil a few centuries ago and I'm sure some would have called that fine as they stood outside their local Church. Now, that's incomprehensible.

A way around that is simply by saying that the people of the past were too uncivilized/ignorant to truly understand the message of scriptures while we today are better equipped to understand the message of God/Jesus.

The neat thing about this argument is that it holds forever.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

A way around that is simply by saying that the people of the past were too uncivilized/ignorant to truly understand the message of scriptures while we today are better equipped to understand the message of God/Jesus.

The neat thing about this argument is that it holds forever.

Whilst some things in religious text can be ambiguous, some are concise and blatant. The 'wrong interpretation' perspective really doesn't work for this, because we're essentially trying to measure, or understand, the ethics of God. The most common examples of this is the story of Jericho where 'men, women and children' were slaughtered. Another is the one that preceded the exodus in Egypt where every firstborn child would die as punishment to Pharoah, and respectfully, I've heard all kinds of mental rollercoasters trying to explain that. The truth is, I don't think anyone can understand explain these things but we are raised to see God as loving and merciful; the personification of Christ, and yet you have examples that pararell these very same themes we associate our faith with.

'God works in mysterious ways. We humans can't always understand'. I've heard that reasoning many-a-times. It's cool. I'm interested in people, however, personally handle such examples - which I think are equally as potent as the question of why there is suffering (see my video of innocent babies starving in Africa)

 

[I_D]

Double post.

 

[I_D]

Evidence: "everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion"
Empirical Evidence: "research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis"
(From Google)

You cannot say that a person could never be convinced. If you use actual, real, legitimate, by-definition, provable logic and evidence, then a person has no choice but to be convinced.

Finding historical evidence that supports the Bible simply means that the Bible may contain true stories. Almost every piece of literature at that time contained historical information, so it would be pretty odd if the Bible did not.
In no way, however, does this mean that 100% of the Bible is true.

The "Bible" as we know it today has undergone an insane amount of changes since it was first created, and chances are most people have never even read the Vulgate or the Dead Sea Scrolls.


Questions:
1. What gives the Bible any more credibility than other religious texts? A considerable portion of the Bible's stories are just adaptations of Gilgamesh and Pagan rituals, so why not trust those stories instead?

2. Why does God need to be worshiped? Seems kinda dumb doesn't it?

3. Why does God have to exist? There are a multitude of theories out there, so what makes an all-powerful creator the most likely?

 

[JGS]

There was a story today of a man being stoned to death, with the accused invoking its reference in the Bible as some kind of justification. Inevitably, some are going to use this as ammo to attack religion. What I'm curious about is whenever topics like stoning or similarly controversial elements within the Bible, specifically the OT, are invoked, the most common rebuttal is that 'Well that's the OT - we as Christians follow the NT'. I interpret that as an attempt to distance one's Christian faith from the topic, suggesting that it's almost a different God in the OT. The NT doesn't have the emphasis of such stuff, but the question isn't what text or message is more ethically questionable, but the unavoidable truth would be (whilst the text is different) that it is still God.

It's not a different God, but it is different rules. With Christianity, God did not concern himself with secular law, quite the opposite of his concern with the Jews. However, the outcome is the same in terms of divine judgement, just not the immediacy since a nation doesn't need to be kept clean. It didn't work anyway.

I think there are better ways of tackling these type of questions, but the response of trying to distance and subsequently distinguish scriptures as if it doesn't relate to your identity or notion of God is is disingenuous in my opinion. Also, related to this. I'm aware of the verse and context behind John chapter 8, verse 7. This is one of those examples where I'd like to ask how has the interpretation surrounding capital punishment in Christianity changed since the 17/18th century, and how does it now reconcile with the capital punishments ordained by God in the original covenant? Would you as a Christian define stoning's for sinful acts now as evil considering the above? Most would say yes, but some (Jew/Christian/Muslim) would hesitate realising they could be blaspheming.

I don't think it's possible for Christians to identify with a stoning so there's no reason to expect them to have a better response. I know if someone asked me about stoning, I would say "Yep, that was a legitimate form of punishment in the OT". I would not classify the punishment as evil, just not one practiced anymore and certainly no longer necessary from a worship perspective. Now the worst thing to happen to a Christian as far as punishment and what humans do is expulsion.

However, it's very easy to indentify with capital punishment which is very different since it's government based which doesn't sound like the the news item was. Capital punishment is all about...well, punishment and Christians understand that because they understand repercussions for wrongdoing which is also why many Christians don't have a problem with the death penalty. However, many also feel that capital punishment should be reserved for God.

 

[TaeOH]

Understood.

Hopefully by my comments you have seen that I am attempting to understand the Theistic position. In doing so I am proposing some questions for Christians to answer. If you feel like it, I would love to get your responses (and others as well), if you don't feel comfortable thanks for your time.

Here are my answers to your questions, such that they are:


1: What evidence (if any) persuaded you that there was an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator?

I believe in an infinite perfect God. Mainly because I was taught to believe that I suppose and in my travels it still makes sense to me. For me, the alternative is to believe in improbable chance that offers very few of the answers I desire and almost no hope in my eyes. I believe the only logical alternative to Theism is Nihilism. So I DESIRE to believe, that is for sure. Since God is infinite who has no beginning and has no end, as it would take such a being to create this universe, I suppose the traits you are applying here can be applied to this God. But do not ask me to logically explain how man has independent free will in a universe of an omniscient God. I don't think that I currently can explain this even though I understand the concept enough to believe it. I do hope to grow to a better understanding of this as I study this topic the rest of my life.

So none of this is really "evidence", but these are my thoughts on your question. Open and honest.


2: What evidence (if any) could be presented that would change your mind about this creators existence?

Because of my personal experience with Jesus as my Lord, I do not think there is anything that could cause me to come to a final conclusion that there is no God. As I find the study of theology to be muddled with a ton of stuff that is very hard to come to grips with; I sometimes have doubts about God's existence. I mean the thoughts creep up. But my experience of a personal relationship with Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I have a solid ground to always fall back on.

As far as evidence goes, well I think it would be easier to prove God to me with a miracle than to disprove Him with the lack of one. Since my epistemology is pre-modern. I will always be able to interpret observable fact to include God. Since I believe in fallen man and his ability(with the encouragement of Satan) to distort God's revelation; I am not so dogmatic that if something I once believed turns out to be invalid, my faith would suffer. I hope I expressed this well, it is a difficult thought to convey.


3: Where do you stand on the concept of original sin? Is it 'just' to hold humanity responsible for the 'sins' of our ancestors? If so, why?
I do not go as far as the metaphysical and so I do not think that what I believe to be the formal doctrine of Original Sin, if that is what you are referring. It is sufficient for me to understand that man rebelled against God in the garden and we stand in opposition to God. That "all have sinned and fall short of the glory god". So that everyone needs to be forgiven by God. In other words, I do not believe any man can stand on their own righteousness before god.

As far as sins of our fathers go, I do believe that we all pay for the transgressions of our family tree that came before. But it is called consequences of decisions made and not necessary active judgment from god. When we talk today that we are in many ways products of our environment, this is the same thing. You are at the same time blessed and cursed by your ancestors.

4: Is evolution a product of God or purely a natural process? Does evolutionary theory ring true for you as a theist, and if so, where does God fit in with this theory?
God created everything, how he created it is what we discover through science and observation. Evolutionary theory as far as the origin of life goes, what I have read about it I think it is pretty weak. Evolution of species over time, well it seems pretty clear that that this has been observed. I do hold to what I think people claim to be a literal translation of the old testament, but it is clearly literature and not a science document. While I find young earth creationist arguments fascinating, I do not think a literal translation (God created Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden being a real place, stuff like that) requires you to throw modern science out the window and insist that the genealogies are complete. To me that is reading into the Bible something that is not there.

This all being said, I believe in an all powerful active God, I am not a deist, I do believe god has the power to suspend or change physical laws he has put in place if he desires. I think he has done that on purpose through history and the witness of that is recorded in the Bible.

5: What is your concept of hell? Is it the traditional 'fire and brimstone' realm of torment, or the eternal absence from God's grace? In either case, what circumstances would cause someone to end up in this place? I think it is pretty clear in Revelation that Satan and his fallen angels who are already eternal beings are facing eternal judgment. I used to think those who reject god would end up there too, but I am not so sure anymore based upon my recent light examinations of this doctrine. I guess it could be that only those who humble themselves before god receive eternal life and that all others, it is just over. My personal theology is still being formed here so that is the best answer I can give at this time. In any case , while I do not find it a pleasant topic, I also find the lack of justice in this world to be abhorrent, so I do desire God to judge evil. The problem comes when I realize that while I seem to be a genuinely nice guy, I am deeply flawed and what a perfect God sees as evil.

 

[astroturfing]

sorry, another atheist busting in but i promise i'm quite harmless and not looking to win a debate or anything (im a terrible debater).

i was just thinking about something, i watched some video earlier of so called uncontacted tribes, ie people who still live in total isolation in some remote rainforests.. people who know NOTHING about the modern world. how does Christianity view these people? would most Christians want to go in and try to convert them, as instructed in the Bible? or would it be wiser to leave them alone?

i personally think it would be highly immoral to disrupt them, as we don't know how their society would react. or if their immune system can even handle the bacteria and viruses we modern people carry. and as they are the last truly free people, would be a sad day to see that end.. but the Bible clearly instructs to spread the word to everyone, so how would it be justified from a Christian point of view? what if they all rejected the religion..? would they go to hell?

 

[JGS]

sorry, another atheist busting in but i promise i'm quite harmless and not looking to win a debate or anything (im a terrible debater).

i was just thinking about something, i watched some video earlier of so called uncontacted tribes, ie people who still live in total isolation in some remote rainforests.. people who know NOTHING about the modern world. how does Christianity view these people? would most Christians want to go in and try to convert them, as instructed in the Bible? or would it be wiser to leave them alone?

i personally think it would be highly immoral to disrupt them, as we don't know how their society would react. or if their immune system can even handle the bacteria and viruses we modern people carry. and as they are the last truly free people, would be a sad day to see that end.. but the Bible clearly instructs to spread the word to everyone, so how would it be justified from a Christian point of view? what if they all rejected the religion..? would they go to hell?

Christian Doctrine's goal is to tell everyone on the planet about it. The hope is they convert but the primary purpose is informing. Since Christians aren't the judge and they would like to see as many people survive as possible, I imagine some contingency of missionaries would go down there and burden them with the option.

 

[astroturfing]

Christian Doctrine's goal is to tell everyone on the planet about it. The hope is they convert but the primary purpose is informing. Since Christians aren't the judge and they would like to see as many people survive as possible, I imagine some contingency of missionaries would go down there and burden them with the option.

yeh. i think that's just simply irresponsible and wrong.

how would they pick who would go there? what if they sent a really crappy missionary who didn't explain things properly and the people would obviously reject the message right off the bat? and how the hell could anyone tell them about Christianity let alone make them read the Bible, when they don't speak or understand any known language and no one understands their language..? why would God allow a situation like this, isn't it almost as if certain people are at a disadvantage when it comes to going to heaven... God doesn't mind being unfair? works in mysterious ways etc?

 

[astroturfing]

(had to continue to a new post, stupid ps3 won't allow longer posts than above)

also, you say the main mission is to inform them, and it's up to them whether to reject or accept the message? do you see the moral dilemma in this? because if they were left alone and no one told them about Christianity, God couldn't judge them according to the Bible. surely they wouldn't be sent to Hell if they never even got the chance to believe in Jesus, so just leave them alone and most likely most of them won't be with Satan after they die! think about it, if all or most of them were to reject Christianity, then that would do more damage than just leaving them alone. why take the huge risk??

or is it more important to obey God's order to spread the beliefs than to care about the consequences?

ohh and what right would Christian missionaries have to go there first? why not Muslim missionaires or some other religion that wants to convert? who decides who gets dibs on a fresh new vulnerable group of potential converts?

 

[JGS]

yeh. i think that's just simply irresponsible and wrong.

Well, I suppose if there's a disease issue, one would want to be cautious but if they were already discovered by someone and exposed, then I'm not sure how much more virulent a missionary is.

Quite frankly, using that argument, the discoverers are the irresponsible ones since they first had the nerve to discover them and thenreckless enough to let the world know about them.

how would they pick who would go there?

Well, I'm assuming any particular religion would pick the missionary they would want to go.

what if they sent a really crappy missionary who didn't explain things properly and the people would obviously reject the message right off the bat?

Misinformation would always be a danger. However, their belief system could be misinforming them too. In fact, that is the assumption.

how the hell could anyone tell them about Christianity let alone make them read the Bible, when they don't speak or understand any known language and no one understands their language..?

The Bible is the most widely available book in the world. If there is a written language, the Bible can be adapted to it. The Bible's overall message is simple and an understanding of all of it at one time is not necessary to gain enough knowledge to grasp it.

why would God allow a situation like this, isn't it almost as if certain people are at a disadvantage when it comes to going to heaven... God doesn't mind being unfair? works in mysterious ways etc?

I'm not sure what you mean by situation. Like I said, Christians themselves don't judge which means that we have no way to know how God handles these situations. That's not our problem but his, and we just trust that he'll handle it appropriately. What we concern ourselves with is doing what is instructed which is not to shut up about our beliefs.

 

[JGS]

(had to continue to a new post, stupid ps3 won't allow longer posts than above)

also, you say the main mission is to inform them, and it's up to them whether to reject or accept the message? do you see the moral dilemma in this? because if they were left alone and no one told them about Christianity, God couldn't judge them according to the Bible. surely they wouldn't be sent to Hell if they never even got the chance to believe in Jesus, so just leave them alone and most likely most of them won't be with Satan after they die! think about it, if all or most of them were to reject Christianity, then that would do more damage than just leaving them alone. why take the huge risk??

That's not a moral dilemna for us. The important thing is for people to gain knowledge that does indeed put them in a closer relationship with God. People who are "saved" but "ignorant" are at a disadvantage, not an advantage- like someone who got into Harvard on a technicality but is illiterate.

What the Bible technically says is that the good news would be preached throughout the inhaboted earth before the end comes, so it's in our best interest to reach as many as possible in order God's name to be vndicated all the quicker.

In any event, Christians tend to focus on their roles over the ones of others. If we're told to preach to the entire world, then that's what we're supposed to do (Most do not and leave it to the missionaries). What God does after we do our job is up to him.

or is it more important to obey God's order to spread the beliefs than to care about the consequences?

The consequences are always positive in relation to him and us.

ohh and what right would Christian missionaries have to go there first? why not Muslim missionaires or some other religion that wants to convert? who decides who gets dibs on a fresh new vulnerable group of potential converts?

I don't think I said anything about other religions not having the right to be there and I suppose it's decided by the ones who have passports, airfare, & zeal.

 

[TGateKeeper]

I was having a debate with a Christian friend about the birth of Jesus and ran into this issue. When i went online I found out this has been a major debate for centuries.
Can one of the Christian experts explain this to me. I have looked all over the internet and there is no hard evidence against this. it may have been covered already if so, sorry.


Birth of Jesus:

Luke 2

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


Matthew 2

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.


Herod died in 4BCE. Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6CE. Which writer is correct?

 

[hellclerk]

I was having a debate with a Christian friend about the birth of Jesus and ran into this issue. When i went online I found out this has been a major debate for centuries.
Can one of the Christian experts explain this to me. I have looked all over the internet and there is no hard evidence against this. it may have been covered already if so, sorry.

Herod died in 4BCE. Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6CE. Which writer is correct?

The time is generally vague, but Herod had two sons also named Herod who ruled for some time after his death. It's likely referring to one of them.

 

[JGS]

I was having a debate with a Christian friend about the birth of Jesus and ran into this issue. When i went online I found out this has been a major debate for centuries.
Can one of the Christian experts explain this to me. I have looked all over the internet and there is no hard evidence against this. it may have been covered already if so, sorry.


Birth of Jesus:

Luke 2

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


Matthew 2

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.


Herod died in 4BCE. Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6CE. Which writer is correct?

There was definitely another Herod, but the governor/census one is the biggest one that trips people up.

The debate is that Cyrenius wasn't the governor (Although it's accepted he existed). I did research on it a long time ago using non-Biblical sources (A debate with an atheist grasping for straws although this one was a pretty legitimate one imo).

It basically indicated that he could have either been a co-governor or an acting governor. But I would have to research the details again (Entirely from Google Books and very, very boring).

 

[TGateKeeper]

There was definitely another Herod, but the governor/census one is the biggest one that trips people up.

The debate is that Cyrenius wasn't the governor (Although it's accepted he existed). I did research on it a long time ago using non-Biblical sources (A debate with an atheist grasping for straws although this one was a pretty legitimate one imo).

It basically indicated that he could have either been a co-governor or an acting governor. But I would have to research the details again (Entirely from Google Books and very, very boring).

I have done my research also. neither herod the great or his sons were in power when cyrenius became governor of syria. the debate is not whether cyrenius was a governor or not. We know that he was the governor of syria and we know that took place in 6CE. the debate is whos account of jesus birth is correct. Mathew say that it happened in the time of king herod. we know herod the great died in 4BCE. his son Herod Archelaus took over from 4 BCE to 6 CE. Herod other son Herod Antipas, was ruler of Galilee from 4BCE to 39CE.



The Escape to Egypt

13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,
15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”[c]

Birth/Death

Herod Archelaus (23 BCE – c. 18 CE)
Herod the Great (74 BCE – c. 4 BCE)
Herod Antipas ( died around 40CE)

Mathew could only have been talking about herod the great because if joseph had remain in egypt till herods son died jesus would have been a man.

but if you read on in matthew he makes it clear that it is herod the great and not his son.

Matthew 2

21 So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee,
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

to the next point cyrenius was not a co-governor of syria.



Governors of Syria
Date Governor
65 – 62 BC Marcus Aemilius Scaurus
61 – 60 BC Lucius Marcius Philippus
59 – 58 BC Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus
57 – 55 BC Aulus Gabinius
54 – 53 BC Marcus Licinius Crassus
53 – 51 BC Gaius Cassius Longinus
51 – 50 BC Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus
50/49 BC Veiento
49 – 48 BC Metellus Scipio
47 – 46 BC Sextus Julius Caesar
46 – 44 BC Caecilius Bassus
45 BC Antistius Vetus
44 BC Lucius Staius Murcus
44 – 42 BC Gaius Cassius Longinus
41 – 40 BC Lucius Decidius Saxa
40 – 39 BC Parthian occupation
39 – 38 BC Publius Ventidius Bassus
38 – 37 BC Gaius Sosius
35 BC Lucius Munatius Plancus
34/33 – 33/32 BC Lucius Calpurnius Bibulus
30 BC Quintus Didius
29 BC Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus
28 – 25 BC Cicero Minor
25 – 23 BC Varro
23 – 13 BC Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa
13/12 – 10/9 BC Marcus Titius
10/9 – 7/6 BC Gaius Sentius Saturninus
7/6 – 4 BC Publius Quinctilius Varus
4 – 1 BC Unknown [1]
1 BC – 4 Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus
4 – 5 Lucius Volusius Saturninus
6 – 9 Publius Sulpicius Quirinius
12 – 17 Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus
17 – 19 Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso
19 – 21 Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus
22 – 32 Lucius Aelius Lamia
32 – 35 Lucius Pomponius Flaccus
35 – 39 Lucius Vitellius
39 – 41/42 Publius Petronius
41/42 – 44/45 Gnaeus Vibius Marcus
45 – 49 Cassius Longinus
50 – 60 Gaius Ummidius Durmius Quadratus
60 – 63 Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo
63 – 67 Cestius Gallus
67 – 69 Gaius Licinius Mucianus
70 – 72 Lucius Caesennius Paetus
73 - 78 Marcus Ulpius Traianus


Even if you say cyrenius was a co- governor of syria (no evidence to show such a thing happened) during the time of Herod the great you will still need to explain the census. Herod was a client king, judea was not part of the empire so a roman wide census did not pertain to judea. However, in 6 ad when judea became part of the roman empire and roman did carry out an empire wide census. This is where the book of luke comes in.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

4: Is evolution a product of God or purely a natural process? Does evolutionary theory ring true for you as a theist, and if so, where does God fit in with this theory?
God created everything, how he created it is what we discover through science and observation. Evolutionary theory as far as the origin of life goes, what I have read about it I think it is pretty weak. Evolution of species over time, well it seems pretty clear that that this has been observed. I do hold to what I think people claim to be a literal translation of the old testament, but it is clearly literature and not a science document. While I find young earth creationist arguments fascinating, I do not think a literal translation (God created Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden being a real place, stuff like that) requires you to throw modern science out the window and insist that the genealogies are complete. To me that is reading into the Bible something that is not there.

This all being said, I believe in an all powerful active God, I am not a deist, I do believe god has the power to suspend or change physical laws he has put in place if he desires. I think he has done that on purpose through history and the witness of that is recorded in the Bible.

I don't know how to say this without being at least somewhat offensive, but as an atheist just wandering into this thread to see what the conversation is about, seeing this makes me really uncomfortable. It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable because it questions my world-view, it makes me uncomfortable because it makes me feel like people of faith are mentally unhinged and not based in reality. Just the way some people can say "God created everything" with certainty, it's crazy and makes me feel like they're fundamentally flawed on a deep level or else have been brain-washed.

This has been a recurring problem for me when discussing religion with people of faith, people will often take my reluctance as insecurity, but really I'm uncomfortable because I honestly think you're crazy. I just want to shake you by the shoulders and yell "Listen to what you're saying!!!"

I just don't think it's in me to understand faith.

 

[JGS]

I have done my research also. neither herod the great or his sons were in power when cyrenius became governor of syria. the debate is not whether cyrenius was a governor or not. We know that he was the governor of syria and we know that took place in 6CE. the debate is whos account of jesus birth is correct. Mathew say that it happened in the time of king herod. we know herod the great died in 4BCE. his son Herod Archelaus took over from 4 BCE to 6 CE. Herod other son Herod Antipas, was ruler of Galilee from 4BCE to 39CE.

That's not what I'm saying. Quirinius was in power of some sort when herod was in power (or else he wouldn't have been governor a few years later). The research is in finding out what he was. The things we know are what is obvious so no one's disputing that. The reason there is a debate is in regards to purely Quirinius position of power during Herod's rule. On the surface, it appears pretty clearly this is a chronology error, however, research into some [boring] history books reveals the possibility that it's not an error at all.

Further i didn't say that he was co-governor, but that it's a possiblity which you can't possibly know unless you have a doctorate in Syrian history- of which case this wouldn't be up for debate. There's is definitely debate about him and certainly nothing absolute regarding Syrian rule at the time of Jesus' birth.

I'll try to locate what I found though. there were basically five different possiblities including admittedly the idea that Cyrenius/Quirinius was nowhere to be found. One of the links was Wikipedia. It wouldn't list a governor during that time.

The fact that Luke even mentioned that detail when there was no reason is evidence of the research he did at a time he was closer to the history (Which could have been as simple as going off memory).

 

[Nocebo]

What I wonder about is how can theists be sure God is still "there" and or even cares that anyone believe anymore.
The Bible is really old and though it showed God interacted with people all the time (spoke to people in an audible voice, even appeared in various physical forms etc.). For a while now it seems there hasn't been any official follow ups on the adventures of God. Why is that? Why do these myth like major events not happen anymore?

Basically if God stopped caring, would he tell us? If he wouldn't tell us how could we tell the difference?