How Many T-Men Believe in God?

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Zeb, you just very much insinuated that you believe we’re all going to Hell.[/quote]

GASP! Stop it…I can’t stand the guilt. LOL

Yes, that’s it I’m afraid to tell someone on a message board something that I really believe.

(Eye Roll)

Maybe you missed some of the bigger threads that I’ve been involved in through the years.

Yes…that must be it.

Quite honestly I don’t know who is going to hell and who is not. And anyone who tells you that they know is mistaken, or they just don’t understand Gods grace or perhaps how God works in peoples lives.

I don’t judge who is going to hell.

Are we clear on that?

I don’t think anything is more serious than eternal damnation.

Do you think you are eternally dammed? While I don’t know for sure who is going to hell I can tell you what the Bible says about how you know for a fact that you’re going to heaven. Let me know if you’d like the info.

Take care.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
They were pure beings. They didn’t know what ‘wrong’ is. How could they know it was ‘wrong’ to disobey God? They didn’t know evil. At all. Therefore, they didn’t know disobeying God was evil.[/quote]

Told not to do something, by God, and they did it anyway.

Simple.

You are trying to link foreknowledge of right and wrong with the act of disobeying. Two different things. If they had faith that God was telling them something that was good for them they would have obeyed.

Hey there’s that word “faith” again.

Gee, you think it has significance?

Funny stuff. I’ve never thought that you could actually prove the existence of God to any particular atheists satisfaction.

Welcome to the club.

Yes, Catholics do that funky stuff.

“Me” encompasses all three.

Oh God exists, don’t worry about that one.

We do indeed. It’s called the Bible.

[quote]For all we know, only devout Atheists go to Heaven. Or maybe mass murderers are given eternal bliss, for setting so many souls free.

We just don’t know.

That’s where faith comes in.[/quote]

Yes, faith is the most important thing. Without it you’re lost.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.

Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.[/quote]

Did you miss the “rational” i demanded…? This is a very red herring, and you know it very well. AND I have already answered the question. There is no way that we kan “prove” 100% in a laymans terms that we don’t live in some kind of computer simulation or in the fantasy of some demon.

But there is nothing that indicates either, therefore we use the things we can measure scientifically to make our laws of the universe. When quantum theory can calculate things that are comparable to calculating the width of the american continent with a 1 hair width accurancy, we know that we are barking up the right tree. Your question is neither legitime or honest, it is a obvious red herring and a troll.

So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?

[/quote]

Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

There is a great amount of evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact live. Those who deny his existence are basically in denial.
[/quote]

Would you be so kind as to summarize this evidence? Keep in mind that what Josephus supposedly wrote is now almost universally considered to be a forgery.

Interestingly, few, if any real archeologists would agree with this assessment. It seems that only Christians are able to appreciate the archeological evidence.

Don’t you think that most people would prefer eternal life in Heaven over the eternal cessation of existene? I would very much prefer that the Bible were true, but no matter how hard I try, I just can’t delude myself that badly.

Do you realize that a large number of funamentalist Christians are absolutely convinced that dinosaurs were on board Noah’s ark? How can anyone associate with a belief system that produces that kind of silliness?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

  1. So writing about something makes it true? Hamlet is some divine love god? :wink: No, “existance” does not follow logically from “being written about”.

I think we may have had this debate another time. But, There have been several Roman writers who mentioned Jesus Christ in their historical writings. They were not writing fiction. They were writing history.

As I’ve said before, there have been enough archeological digs to shore up anyones belief in the Old Testament. People wrote down what they saw and experienced. You are obviously free not to believe it. You are also free not to believe that Plato and Aristotle did not exist. It was a long time ago right?

  1. Well, we have two different versions of the ten commandments.

Nope, one version. I know which web site you got that from and it’s misleading to say the least.

We have the gospel of matthew says that Jesus relates to king david trough 28 generations, luke trough 41… and the names on the lists doesen’t even remotely match… Two quick examples. The bible is full of contradictions. I have read it quite a few times, more than most christians… I know.

You know I think I know where you found this nonsense.

I told someone else to stay off of those goofy anti-Christian web sites. They throw out more crap than the New York City sewer system.

There is no contradiction at all in what you’ve posted.

I’ll explain as briefly as I can:

Matthews gospel was written for the Jewish people. Matthew begins with Abraham, the “Father” of the Jewish nation, then follows the line through David the King. Each individual that Matthew lists is of royal lineage. This gives evidence of the royal blood line of Jesus.

You see during the first century if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son received the fathers lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.

Lukes gospel on the other hand was written primarily for greeks. Hence, he traces the lineage through his mother, Mary.

To further complicate the matter not many people are aware that Joseph and Mary were in fact first cousins. While this would be a big no no in the modern times, it was common place 2000 years ago.

So one traces through Mary and the other through Joseph. And Mary and Joseph were actually related.

No contradiction at all.

  1. There are no rational indications… it is a simple as that.

That would depend on exactly how you define a “rational indication.”

There is a great amount of evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact live. Those who deny his existence are basically in denial.

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there have been many archeological digs that have demonstrated various Biblical accounts to in fact be historical.

Faith is a funny thing, if someone does not want to believe he will find reasons not to. And to be fair if someone does want to believe there are an abundance of indications which would lead him to.

[/quote]

  1. Believing that Jesus existed as a human being and that some historical events in the Bible de facto occured doesen’t make Jesus god’s son.

  2. I have not been on any of those web-sites you talk about, I’ve been a christian for 15 years… Check the facts yourself, closing your eyes and refusing to realize that the bible is self-contradictory is just… infantile (which ofcourse, IS the main problem with religion).

I have given you to explicit examples, you have not refuted them in any way other than “well, I think you might have it from a website”… well: wrong.

  1. “There is a great amount of evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact live. Those who deny his existence are basically in denial.” Again you confuse “living” with “being the son of god”. There is quite a lot of evidence that a tribal leader in Eastern Europe is the source to the myth of Czernobog and Bielbog. Does that mean that those myths are true…? Ofcourse not.

“Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there have been many archeological digs that have demonstrated various Biblical accounts to in fact be historical.”

Again you seem to equate “some parts of the bible are actually true” with “the bible is the true word of god”. That is a leap of faith… which is not logically sound in any way.

“Faith is a funny thing, if someone does not want to believe he will find reasons not to. And to be fair if someone does want to believe there are an abundance of indications which would lead him to.”

Faith is a very funny thing indeed. If I told you that your wife had been unfaithful… or that the world was going to explode tomorrow, you wouldn’t merely believe me… or have “faith”. Neither would you believe a random person telling you that you had cancer, out of the blue.

But nevertheless, you make those leaps of faith when it comes to religion. No proof at all, no evidence, no indications that any god exists, and yet, with a total disregard for rationality and modern discourse, you just “believe”…

As Sam Harris put it:

delusions most of the time gives you a mental diagnosis of psychosis or other mental health problems, that is: if you don’t share a very populare delusion, then we call it “religion”.

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?

Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…

[/quote]

Many of them also considered the pursuit of making gold a rational matter. You are the third guy trying the “appeal to authority” fallacy here. The fact that a greek philosopher thought that the earth was flat, doesen’t validate flat earth society today.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
They were pure beings. They didn’t know what ‘wrong’ is. How could they know it was ‘wrong’ to disobey God? They didn’t know evil. At all. Therefore, they didn’t know disobeying God was evil.

Told not to do something, by God, and they did it anyway.

Simple.

You are trying to link foreknowledge of right and wrong with the act of disobeying. Two different things. If they had faith that God was telling them something that was good for them they would have obeyed.

Hey there’s that word “faith” again.

Gee, you think it has significance?

The second you ‘prove’ God, or even try, you no longer have faith. You are trying to justify your belief, meaning your faith is not enough.

Funny stuff. I’ve never thought that you could actually prove the existence of God to any particular atheists satisfaction.

The Godhead still confuses me.

Welcome to the club.

You will believe in no God but me, but people pray to Saints all the time.

Yes, Catholics do that funky stuff.

People pray to Jesus/the Holy Spirit. I don’t get it. (Note: I’m not just pointing out a contradiction, I really don’t understand this whole thing).

“Me” encompasses all three.

And IF God does exist

Oh God exists, don’t worry about that one.

we have no idea of know what God is like, what God values, or even IF God values.

We do indeed. It’s called the Bible.

For all we know, only devout Atheists go to Heaven. Or maybe mass murderers are given eternal bliss, for setting so many souls free.

We just don’t know.

That’s where faith comes in.

Yes, faith is the most important thing. Without it you’re lost.

[/quote]

FACEPALM

That’s all I have to say anymore…

[quote]SouthernBrew wrote:

Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…[/quote]

Yes, Adamsson keeps trying to sidestep the argument by giving conclusory statements and painting those that disagree with him as not MATURE.

This is one of the greatest questions mankind has ever faced - and one of the most interesting. I suspect some kid in Norway hasn’t summed it all up for the rest of humanity.

yup i do

[quote]belligerent wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Would you be so kind as to summarize this evidence? Keep in mind that what Josephus supposedly wrote is now almost universally considered to be a forgery.[/quote]

Actually, there are only a couple of lines that Josephus wrote that are considered by some to be forged. The rest of it is quite accurate.

I’ll post some info that I have. But, first I have to find it.

Naw…you just aren’t reading the right stuff:

"A good example of the historical accuracy of the Bible is found in the person of King Solomon. For years critics of the Bible doubted the description of King Solomon’s wealth as some sort of fairy tale. But between the years 1925-1943 archaeologists unearthed the remains of some of Solomon’s garrisons at Megiddo, in northern Palestine. It was here that archaeologists discovered the remains of horse stables capable of holding hundreds of horses, and the remains of the barracks for Solomon’s chariot riders.

A New Testament example is found in the account where Jesus was brought before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who sentenced him to death. However, the name Pontius Pilate was known only from Jewish and Christian sources; there was never any mention of him from Roman sources. This in itself did not necessarily mean that the Bible was wrong, but it did seem to appear that there was a certain lack of credibility when the Bible spoke of a Roman ruler whose name did not appear anywhere in Roman history. However, during later excavation at Caesarea archaeologists found a stone plaque (recording the dedication of a building) with a Latin inscription naming `Pontius Pilate, Praefect of Judaea.’

And what is all the more amazing is that in most cases, archaeological digs are often not sponsored by Christian groups seeking to prove the Bible. Most are sponsored by governmental agencies or educational institutions, many of them Jewish or Muslim. Critics of the Bible would be quick to publicize discrepancies if they could find any."

There are other examples of what I’ve been talking about. But please consider these two first.

You know,

Some people who have become known as “Christian fundamentalists” sure do seem wacky at times, even to me, and I’m a Christian.

I think God is a lot bigger than some of those folks seem to think. And I also think there is far more in the Bible than what they’ve read. And I think there’s even a deeper meaning to what they have read.

But…

why let a few wacky people keep you from getting closer to God?

I don’t think that’s any better of an excuse than someone who was Catholic claiming that they want nothing to do with religion because some Priest molested a little boy.

Sure the Priest is a scum bag. But what does that have to do with your relationship with God?

It’s sort of like saying the owner of the Gym I go to molested a little boy. Therefore, I am no longer going to train.

Crazy huh?

The fact is wherever you have “man” you are going to have “silliness” as you put it. Craziness, ego, lust, you name it.

Or, we can call it “sin.”

Another mans sin should not keep you from God. Now that would be silly.

No?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:

Yes, and that’s what I meant by my question: what is it that’s required, other than reason, to properly conduct that inquiry?

Among others: instinct, intuition, evidentiary induction, and morality.

[/quote]

Did not show Kant once and for all that once you leave the realm of what you can reduce to empirical proof you can logically proof everything and its opposite?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
SouthernBrew wrote:

Many of the greatest philosophers have judged it to be a rational and mature question…

Yes, Adamsson keeps trying to sidestep the argument by giving conclusory statements and painting those that disagree with him as not MATURE.

This is one of the greatest questions mankind has ever faced - and one of the most interesting. I suspect some kid in Norway hasn’t summed it all up for the rest of humanity.[/quote]

And Kant ended the debate.

Critique of pure reason , for everyone interested.

I guess some guys in the US are not up to par when it comes to the enlightenment?

The answer is in short, we can not know.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

  1. So writing about something makes it true? Hamlet is some divine love god? :wink: No, “existance” does not follow logically from “being written about”.

I think we may have had this debate another time. But, There have been several Roman writers who mentioned Jesus Christ in their historical writings. They were not writing fiction. They were writing history.

As I’ve said before, there have been enough archeological digs to shore up anyones belief in the Old Testament. People wrote down what they saw and experienced. You are obviously free not to believe it. You are also free not to believe that Plato and Aristotle did not exist. It was a long time ago right?

  1. Well, we have two different versions of the ten commandments.

Nope, one version. I know which web site you got that from and it’s misleading to say the least.

We have the gospel of matthew says that Jesus relates to king david trough 28 generations, luke trough 41… and the names on the lists doesen’t even remotely match… Two quick examples. The bible is full of contradictions. I have read it quite a few times, more than most christians… I know.

You know I think I know where you found this nonsense.

I told someone else to stay off of those goofy anti-Christian web sites. They throw out more crap than the New York City sewer system.

There is no contradiction at all in what you’ve posted.

I’ll explain as briefly as I can:

Matthews gospel was written for the Jewish people. Matthew begins with Abraham, the “Father” of the Jewish nation, then follows the line through David the King. Each individual that Matthew lists is of royal lineage. This gives evidence of the royal blood line of Jesus.

You see during the first century if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son received the fathers lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.

Lukes gospel on the other hand was written primarily for greeks. Hence, he traces the lineage through his mother, Mary.

To further complicate the matter not many people are aware that Joseph and Mary were in fact first cousins. While this would be a big no no in the modern times, it was common place 2000 years ago.

So one traces through Mary and the other through Joseph. And Mary and Joseph were actually related.

No contradiction at all.

  1. There are no rational indications… it is a simple as that.

That would depend on exactly how you define a “rational indication.”

There is a great amount of evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact live. Those who deny his existence are basically in denial.

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there have been many archeological digs that have demonstrated various Biblical accounts to in fact be historical.

Faith is a funny thing, if someone does not want to believe he will find reasons not to. And to be fair if someone does want to believe there are an abundance of indications which would lead him to.

  1. Believing that Jesus existed as a human being and that some historical events in the Bible de facto occured doesen’t make Jesus god’s son. [/quote]

Yea, I think we covered this one.

It ended with talk about faith and why it’s so important. However, there is compelling evidence which as I already stated could cause many, oh about 2 billion at last count, to believe that Jesus Christ is in fact the son of God.

You’re currently a Christian?

[quote] Check the facts yourself, closing your eyes and refusing to realize that the bible is self-contradictory is just… infantile (which ofcourse, IS the main problem with religion).

I have given you to explicit examples, you have not refuted them in any way other than “well, I think you might have it from a website”… well: wrong.[/quote]

And I’ve refuted those examples.

I think if you reread the thread (it’s getting to be a long one) you’ll find where I did refute your examples of the Bible being contradictory.

Hey quote time!

Here’s one of my favorites:

“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

John 20:31

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

FACEPALM

That’s all I have to say anymore…[/quote]

I wonder, how else do you expect a debate about “faith” to end?

The following is something that was posted on T-Nation last year sometime. I did not write it and I have no idea who posted it at this point.

I’m absolutely sure that it will not convince the most devout atheist to drop their current beliefs (yes atheism is a belief) and run for a Bible.

I am posting it as an opportunity to reach out to those many who are still searching.

Here it is:

"Historical writers mentioning Jesus:
Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”

The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante?Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”

Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

The historical Jesus is debated by very, very few. You can find people that still believe the world is flat so just because you can find a few in a google search doesnâ¿¿t mean that they hold much credit, regardless the above listing should answer your question."

And I will end with a few of my own words:

When people lie they do it for a “gain” of some kind. They never lie so that they can die, or hurt themselves in anyway. In fact, they might lie in order to avoid death.

This I’m sure has happened many times. Jesus Christ had nothing to gain by saying that he was the son of God. In fact, he had much to lose as when he proclaimed himself the son of God the Pharisees wanted to kill him! Not saying he was the son of God would have been a lie worth telling to save his own life. But he didn’t lie.

His disciples had nothing to gain by lying and saying that Christ was indeed the son of God. But they told the truth anyway. And for their truth not only didn’t they gain anything-They were killed. If any one of them had seen something that looked like deception or a lie from following Christ they surely would have stated it so that they could escape death. But what they saw was the truth.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

  1. So writing about something makes it true? Hamlet is some divine love god? :wink: No, “existance” does not follow logically from “being written about”.

I think we may have had this debate another time. But, There have been several Roman writers who mentioned Jesus Christ in their historical writings. They were not writing fiction. They were writing history.

As I’ve said before, there have been enough archeological digs to shore up anyones belief in the Old Testament. People wrote down what they saw and experienced. You are obviously free not to believe it. You are also free not to believe that Plato and Aristotle did not exist. It was a long time ago right?

  1. Well, we have two different versions of the ten commandments.

Nope, one version. I know which web site you got that from and it’s misleading to say the least.

We have the gospel of matthew says that Jesus relates to king david trough 28 generations, luke trough 41… and the names on the lists doesen’t even remotely match… Two quick examples. The bible is full of contradictions. I have read it quite a few times, more than most christians… I know.

You know I think I know where you found this nonsense.

I told someone else to stay off of those goofy anti-Christian web sites. They throw out more crap than the New York City sewer system.

There is no contradiction at all in what you’ve posted.

I’ll explain as briefly as I can:

Matthews gospel was written for the Jewish people. Matthew begins with Abraham, the “Father” of the Jewish nation, then follows the line through David the King. Each individual that Matthew lists is of royal lineage. This gives evidence of the royal blood line of Jesus.

You see during the first century if a Jewish man adopted a son, that son received the fathers lineage. Therefore, according to Jewish tradition, Jesus would be given the genealogy of his adopted father.

Lukes gospel on the other hand was written primarily for greeks. Hence, he traces the lineage through his mother, Mary.

To further complicate the matter not many people are aware that Joseph and Mary were in fact first cousins. While this would be a big no no in the modern times, it was common place 2000 years ago.

So one traces through Mary and the other through Joseph. And Mary and Joseph were actually related.

No contradiction at all.

  1. There are no rational indications… it is a simple as that.

That would depend on exactly how you define a “rational indication.”

There is a great amount of evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact live. Those who deny his existence are basically in denial.

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there have been many archeological digs that have demonstrated various Biblical accounts to in fact be historical.

Faith is a funny thing, if someone does not want to believe he will find reasons not to. And to be fair if someone does want to believe there are an abundance of indications which would lead him to.

  1. Believing that Jesus existed as a human being and that some historical events in the Bible de facto occured doesen’t make Jesus god’s son.

Yea, I think we covered this one.

It ended with talk about faith and why it’s so important. However, there is compelling evidence which as I already stated could cause many, oh about 2 billion at last count, to believe that Jesus Christ is in fact the son of God.

  1. I have not been on any of those web-sites you talk about, I’ve been a christian for 15 years…

You’re currently a Christian?

Check the facts yourself, closing your eyes and refusing to realize that the bible is self-contradictory is just… infantile (which ofcourse, IS the main problem with religion).

I have given you to explicit examples, you have not refuted them in any way other than “well, I think you might have it from a website”… well: wrong.

And I’ve refuted those examples.

I think if you reread the thread (it’s getting to be a long one) you’ll find where I did refute your examples of the Bible being contradictory.

Again you seem to equate “some parts of the bible are actually true” with “the bible is the true word of god”. That is a leap of faith… which is not logically sound in any way.

I don’t think that there is any amount of what you identify as “logic” that will convince you.

As I have said. Many have read the Bible and done their homework, and they have accepted the God of the Bible. And believe it or not some of those folks were even as smart as you. In fact, they might just be a bit smarter.

People like T.S. Elliot, C. S. Lewis and J.R Tolkien just to name three.

Here is one more. And while he did not accept the God of the Bible, he did “know” that God existed:

"Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

I like that last quote, don’t you?

Holding out until the last shred of evidence might be the very smartest thing to do. Then again, It might be the most foolish thing to do.

Again, that’s why FAITH is so very important.

“Faith is a funny thing, if someone does not want to believe he will find reasons not to. And to be fair if someone does want to believe there are an abundance of indications which would lead him to.”

Faith is a very funny thing indeed. If I told you that your wife had been unfaithful… or that the world was going to explode tomorrow, you wouldn’t merely believe me… or have “faith”. Neither would you believe a random person telling you that you had cancer, out of the blue.

But nevertheless, you make those leaps of faith when it comes to religion.

Oh, I think you’re really reaching with those examples. But, it somehow rationalizes your lack of belief to make up silly comparisons.

And if you know something about my wife why don’t you just come out and say it!

(Kidding:)

No proof at all, no evidence, no indications that any god exists, and yet, with a total disregard for rationality and modern discourse, you just “believe”…

As Yogi Berra would say, Dajivu all over again.

I know we’ve had this debate. You might have had a different screen name but…

There is an abundance of evidence that Christ lived. Roman authors etc.

And…I wonder why his apostles died for him? The very people who were closest to Jesus.

Did they die for a liar? A fake? A nut?

Or, did they die for someone whom they believed to be the son of God?

I could go on. As I’ve said if you want to believe the evidence is there. If want to not believe it’s there as well…

Faith…it comes down to faith. you don’t have it (yet), and I do.

As Sam Harris put it:

delusions most of the time gives you a mental diagnosis of psychosis or other mental health problems, that is: if you don’t share a very populare delusion, then we call it “religion”.

Hey quote time!

Here’s one of my favorites:

“But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

John 20:31

[/quote]

  1. Albert Einstein was not a christian, and he did not believe in a theist god. He did explicitly clarify this, BEACAUSE christian people took his quotes out of context to use them to forward their cause. FALSE

  2. You think that appeal to majority makes an argument more logically valid or more solid? Since so many people buy Britney Spears albums, they must be good? Democracy is not a good tool to decide what’s right and what’s wrong, especially not when it comes to religion.

  3. Does it seem like I’m a christian now…?

  4. The fact that some of Jesus’ followers believed that he was god, doesen’t make him god. The fact that Jesus suffered for his philosophy is not something that is very special for him. Ghandi did this, Buddah… many people has.

The thing is, you fail to show other than “well, many people believe, therefore it must be true and right to believe”-kind of evidence. That doesen’t hold up here.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

Albert Einstein was not a christian, and he did not believe in a theist god. He did explicitly clarify this, BEACAUSE christian people took his quotes out of context to use them to forward their cause. FALSE[/quote]

And you are taking my words out of context to use them to forward your cause.

I clearly stated:

“Here is one more. And while he (Einstein) did not accept the God of the Bible, he did “know” that God existed:”

And you must know that when you do things like that you only harm your own credibility and cause.

You’re going to have to suck it up. Einstein thought there was a higher power. And Einstein was presumably smarter than you.

What does this mean?

Not a thing to me.

But, I can only assume it must hold plenty of weight with you since you attempted to twist my words to further your own point.

I’m more interested in what the many are seeing that you’re not seeing. And I used the example that I did because of your nonsensical examples.

People like T.S. Elliot, C. S. Lewis and J.R Tolkien might not have had as sharp a mind as you…but somehow I doubt it.

Did they understand something you do not?

Ha ha…it doesn’t have to “hold up”.

God gave you a free will, you can believe whatever you’d like.

I’ve chosen my path and so have you (so far).

I’ve posted some very good evidence, scroll back. Historians, eye witnesses, archeological digs etc.

I’m not attempting to prove anything really. I’m simply explaining to you and whoever wants to join in the many reasons that people become Christians.

It’s not that because 2 billion people are Christians then it must be right.

It’s that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence which points to,

  1. Christ having lived.

  2. The Bible being accurate.

  3. Many who were close to Christ dying horrible deaths because of what they saw-first hand.

When the over 2 billion people put it together they came to the same conclusion that I did.

But again, you have to remember it’s about faith, as there is no iron clad proof that would sway you or any die hard atheist.

Faith my man…some have it some don’t.

:wink:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Among others: instinct, intuition, evidentiary induction, and morality.[/quote]

Aren’t instincts simply genetically wired automatic behaviors? Like trying to stay alive or attempting to reproduce? Eating when hungry and finding water when thirsty? Maybe you need to explain that one, unless you feel an “instinct” to believe in God.

Intuition is similar, as it’s a conclusion or a “knowledge” you feel you know, but can’t really understand how you came to know it. What you call “intuition” might be more adequately described as “wishful thinking.” With some intuitions, you can test your feeling or your instant knowledge and validate (or reject) the intuition. With this question, intuition is worthless, since, again, you cannot test the result of the intuition.

Induction is an entirely reasonable process, used in science and various other “reasonable” fields. Maybe here too an illustration of what you mean might be helpful in understanding the point.

As for morality, a fairly universal morality can be deduced quite reasonably from the common experience of being human. We do not require a universal “morality giver” to know that indiscriminate killing is bad, or that stealing or raping is wrong. Simply scaling the acts to the entire population quickly shows that human society cannot function if everyone kills, maims, steals and rapes to his heart’s content.

Simple empathy with our fellow humans is already a strong moral compass, putting yourself in the shoes of the other before doing an action that involves or affects him will give most a good idea of the rightness or wrongness of an action.

No

I’m an atheist. I think it’s a real shame that there is so much misunderstanding about what it is to be atheist but there you go. Subsequently I tend to qualify it by adding that I am a consequentialist.

In fact, as Prof. Richard Dawkins put far more particularly than me (paraphrasing here), every person of faith is atheistic with regards every other religion but their own, and so is very well acquainted with atheism - Making all the outrage such a term can manifest particularly baffling to people who apply the same laws of quantification and evidence to their thoughts on the cosmos, as nearly everybody does to near every single other aspect of waking life, BAR religion.

I just don’t understand why religion, whichever one it is, is allowed to be exempt from the close scrutiny we pay everything else we do.

And when the overwhelming majority of those people of faith are subjects of a particular religious denomination purely due to the geography of their birthplace - it just doesn’t ring true to me. Sorry.

That said, I would defend anybody’s right to believe whatever they wanted, as long as they did likewise to me, and respected my views too. Unfortunately it has been my experience that this is not always the case, but even so - Though it makes me laugh I’m even happy to respect Tom Cruise’s right to believe whatever the hell it is he believes. .

By the way, I’m not a member, but it’s worth checking out

http://www.the-brights.net/

Just for some perspective from the other side of the fence.