Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
LMAO. Sure, if that's how you want to rationalise it.I'm not seeing any difference there betweens forcing my beliefs and forcing the debate on my beliefs. I'm responding to believers who chose to post in a thread about atheism. I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and if no one had posted on this thread stating their religious beliefs, I would not have posted
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm going to let other religions defend themselves. I have enough reason to believe what I believe, and I'll go through them in headings:
1) Messianic prophesy, over three hundred prophesies concerning the Messiah in the Tanakh were fulfilled by Christ's ministry on the earth. The more of these that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus makes it more and more unlikely that Jesus was indeed not the Messiah. Over 300 checks and balances to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and the Lord is quite an extensive test of validity.
2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.
3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility. It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do would be to look to the possibility of a Creator or a means of causation to explain how the universe came into existence given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life. It is incredible to me to suggest that this world was not created by a supernatural force given that what is natural is frequently observable, what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means. In addition to this, when looking to how the universe has come into being, we can only assess what is within the universe, rather than what is external to it.
It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable. Miracles by their nature are hugely improbable by natural means if and of their own, however if there is a supernatural force behind said miracles by which the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are known, then it is rather probable that indeed that miracles can take place, just as it is quite probable that the universe came into existence through a supernatural force. This gives credence to me that the earth is the creation of God.
The reasoning that William Lane Craig common proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, gives for believing in a God of miracles is as follows:
a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
b) God makes sense of the universes complexity.
c) God makes sense of objective moral values.
d) God makes sense of the resurrection.
e) God can be immediately experienced
(I'll quote from him when dealing with spiritual experiences)
4) Spiritual experiences - These are the strongest witness and conviction of an individuals faith, and this is where the atheist is left to struggle in misunderstanding over these type of issues. William Lane Craig has commonly claimed that the Holy Spirit is the greatest witness to a Christian about the truth of Christianity. If I may give an example from Lee Strobel's Case for Faith, published by Zondervan, which is a book I'd recommend you all to read if you are genuinely curious. You have no excuse, there is a range of Christian apologetics that you can read if you want answers:"Ultimately, the way a Christian really knews that Christianity is true is through the self-authenticating witness of God's Spirit," he said. "The Holy Spirit whispers to our spirit that we belong to God. That's one of His roles. Other evidence although still valid, is basically confirmatory."
Craig thought for a moment then asked, "You know Peter Grant, don't you?" I replied that, yes, I was a friend of the Atlanta pastor. "Well", Craig said, "he came up with this great illustration of how this works.
"Let's say that you're going to the office to see if your boss is in. You see his car in the parking lot. You ask the secretary if he's in, and she says, 'Yes, I just spoke with him'. You see the light from under his offic door. You listen and hear his voice on the telephone. On the basis of this evidence, you have good grounds for concluding that your boss is in his office.
"But you could do something quite different. You could go to the door and knock on it and meet the boss face-to-face, At that point, the evidence of the car in the parking lot, the secretary's testimony, the light under the door, the voice on the telephone. On the basis of all this evidence, you have good grounds for concluding that your boss is in his office.
"But you could do something quite different. You could go to the door and knock on it and meet the boss face-to-face. At that point, the evidence of the car in the parking lot, the secretary's testimony, the light under the door, the voice on the telephone - all of that would still be perfectly valid, but it would take a secondary role- take a secondary role, because you've now met the boss face to face.
"And in the same way, when we've met God, so to speak face-to-face, all of the arguments and evidence for His existence - though still perfectly valid - take a secondary role. They now become confirmatory of what God Himself has shown us in a supernatural way through the witness of the Holy Spirit in our hearts"
So, although secondary evidence is still useful. The only way that the mental barriers that people put up before God will be lifted will be through trust, and asking to God to open up your heart so that you may accept Jesus as Lord.
Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 - 3 says the Cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, but for those who are being saved it is the power of God.
Yet you are without excuse, according to the book of Romans chapter 1 as God has made Himself apparent through creation.
Experiences also convince me of my faith, as I can discuss with my Christian friends, all of differing denominations of Christ's faith, and they can all discuss with me about how Christ is working in their lives, and about spiritual challenges and struggles we all have under the armour of the Lord (Ephesians 6).
If you do not understand spiritual experiences, you will forever misunderstand how the average Christian operates.
5) Historical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth -
Writers such as Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and so on reference the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian community in their works. If you take a read of Josephus' - Jewish Antiquities in particular it has references to both Jesus of Nazareth and the Crucifixion, Christians, and James the Righteous and his stoning to death. There is also a broad historical consensus with slight disagreement that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was the site where Jesus was crucified. This gives credence to me that Jesus was indeed crucified. This in particular is a problem for Islam stating that Jesus was not crucified at all.
6) Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the Bible.
Figures such as Xerxes (if you have seen 300 this is the same Xerxes), Nebuchadnezzar, Hezekiah, Sennachera, Balthasar, Darius, Cyrus, and so on have been substantiated in secular historical sources of the age. Likewise, the construction of the walls of Jerusalem, the construction of the 2nd Temple, the captivity of the Judeans and the Israelites, and so on are also backed up historically. Archaeological sites such as the Zedekiahs Cave underneath the city of Jerusalem, King David's Tower, and Biblical sites such as Herod's palace, Temple coins from Jerusalem, Pilates residence in Caesarea, the ruins of the city of Capernaum and so on have all been found, and there are many more promising archaeological projects in the future which may substantiate the Biblical record more over the first few years. I have also mentioned the likelihood of the occurrence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it's citation by many geologists, if you take a look at Google Scholar or JSTOR you will find information on these.
7) Authenticity of the Bible - The New Testament is one of the most widely circulated pieces of work in the Greek world, and it has indeed circulated far further than works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, if we are to reject the New Testament as a reliable and authoriative historical witness to the life of Christ, we would also have to reject works which aren't anywhere near as widely accounted for as the New Testament accounts themselves. The Bible as a whole compiled in two periods, the Tanakh compiled by the Jewish leaders in 450BC, and the Bible including the New Testament was compiled in 360AD at the council of Nicea. However we have evidence through the church fathers that these books were widely used in the first century:
A good youtube video might help on this:
There was perfect reason for the selection of these books over other texts that were released at much later dates.
How these reasons aren't considered logical, are beyond me, quite frankly beyond me. These to me are very very strong indicators of my faith, and of it's truth and validity in the world. Feel free to try and pick them apart now
0 -
Okay, I didn't actually read any of this.I'm going to let other religions defend themselves. I have enough reason to believe what I believe, and I'll go through them in headings:
1) Messianic prophesy, over three hundred prophesies concerning the Messiah in the Tanakh were fulfilled by Christ's ministry on the earth. The more of these that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus makes it more and more unlikely that Jesus was indeed not the Messiah. Over 300 checks and balances to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and the Lord is quite an extensive test of validity.
2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.
3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility. It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do would be to look to the possibility of a Creator or a means of causation to explain how the universe came into existence given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life. It is incredible to me to suggest that this world was not created by a supernatural force given that what is natural is frequently observable, what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means. In addition to this, when looking to how the universe has come into being, we can only assess what is within the universe, rather than what is external to it.
It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable. Miracles by their nature are hugely improbable by natural means if and of their own, however if there is a supernatural force behind said miracles by which the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are known, then it is rather probable that indeed that miracles can take place, just as it is quite probable that the universe came into existence through a supernatural force. This gives credence to me that the earth is the creation of God.
The reasoning that William Lane Craig common proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, gives for believing in a God of miracles is as follows:
a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
b) God makes sense of the universes complexity.
c) God makes sense of objective moral values.
d) God makes sense of the resurrection.
e) God can be immediately experienced
(I'll quote from him when dealing with spiritual experiences)
4) Spiritual experiences - These are the strongest witness and conviction of an individuals faith, and this is where the atheist is left to struggle in misunderstanding over these type of issues. William Lane Craig has commonly claimed that the Holy Spirit is the greatest witness to a Christian about the truth of Christianity. If I may give an example from Lee Strobel's Case for Faith, published by Zondervan, which is a book I'd recommend you all to read if you are genuinely curious. You have no excuse, there is a range of Christian apologetics that you can read if you want answers:
So, although secondary evidence is still useful. The only way that the mental barriers that people put up before God will be lifted will be through trust, and asking to God to open up your heart so that you may accept Jesus as Lord.
Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 - 3 says the Cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, but for those who are being saved it is the power of God.
Yet you are without excuse, according to the book of Romans chapter 1 as God has made Himself apparent through creation.
Experiences also convince me of my faith, as I can discuss with my Christian friends, all of differing denominations of Christ's faith, and they can all discuss with me about how Christ is working in their lives, and about spiritual challenges and struggles we all have under the armour of the Lord (Ephesians 6).
If you do not understand spiritual experiences, you will forever misunderstand how the average Christian operates.
5) Historical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth -
Writers such as Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and so on reference the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian community in their works. If you take a read of Josephus' - Jewish Antiquities in particular it has references to both Jesus of Nazareth and the Crucifixion, Christians, and James the Righteous and his stoning to death. There is also a broad historical consensus with slight disagreement that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was the site where Jesus was crucified. This gives credence to me that Jesus was indeed crucified. This in particular is a problem for Islam stating that Jesus was not crucified at all.
6) Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the Bible.
Figures such as Xerxes (if you have seen 300 this is the same Xerxes), Nebuchadnezzar, Hezekiah, Sennachera, Balthasar, Darius, Cyrus, and so on have been substantiated in secular historical sources of the age. Likewise, the construction of the walls of Jerusalem, the construction of the 2nd Temple, the captivity of the Judeans and the Israelites, and so on are also backed up historically. Archaeological sites such as the Zedekiahs Cave underneath the city of Jerusalem, King David's Tower, and Biblical sites such as Herod's palace, Temple coins from Jerusalem, Pilates residence in Caesarea, the ruins of the city of Capernaum and so on have all been found, and there are many more promising archaeological projects in the future which may substantiate the Biblical record more over the first few years. I have also mentioned the likelihood of the occurrence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it's citation by many geologists, if you take a look at Google Scholar or JSTOR you will find information on these.
7) Authenticity of the Bible - The New Testament is one of the most widely circulated pieces of work in the Greek world, and it has indeed circulated far further than works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, if we are to reject the New Testament as a reliable and authoriative historical witness to the life of Christ, we would also have to reject works which aren't anywhere near as widely accounted for as the New Testament accounts themselves. The Bible as a whole compiled in two periods, the Tanakh compiled by the Jewish leaders in 450BC, and the Bible including the New Testament was compiled in 360AD at the council of Nicea. However we have evidence through the church fathers that these books were widely used in the first century:
A good youtube video might help on this:
There was perfect reason for the selection of these books over other texts that were released at much later dates.
How these reasons aren't considered logical, are beyond me, quite frankly beyond me. These to me are very very strong indicators of my faith, and of it's truth and validity in the world. Feel free to try and pick them apart now0 -
tl;drI'm going to let other religions defend themselves. I have enough reason to believe what I believe, and I'll go through them in headings:
1) Messianic prophesy, over three hundred prophesies concerning the Messiah in the Tanakh were fulfilled by Christ's ministry on the earth. The more of these that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus makes it more and more unlikely that Jesus was indeed not the Messiah. Over 300 checks and balances to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and the Lord is quite an extensive test of validity.
2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.
3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility. It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do would be to look to the possibility of a Creator or a means of causation to explain how the universe came into existence given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life. It is incredible to me to suggest that this world was not created by a supernatural force given that what is natural is frequently observable, what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means. In addition to this, when looking to how the universe has come into being, we can only assess what is within the universe, rather than what is external to it.
It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable. Miracles by their nature are hugely improbable by natural means if and of their own, however if there is a supernatural force behind said miracles by which the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are known, then it is rather probable that indeed that miracles can take place, just as it is quite probable that the universe came into existence through a supernatural force. This gives credence to me that the earth is the creation of God.
The reasoning that William Lane Craig common proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, gives for believing in a God of miracles is as follows:
a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
b) God makes sense of the universes complexity.
c) God makes sense of objective moral values.
d) God makes sense of the resurrection.
e) God can be immediately experienced
(I'll quote from him when dealing with spiritual experiences)
4) Spiritual experiences - These are the strongest witness and conviction of an individuals faith, and this is where the atheist is left to struggle in misunderstanding over these type of issues. William Lane Craig has commonly claimed that the Holy Spirit is the greatest witness to a Christian about the truth of Christianity. If I may give an example from Lee Strobel's Case for Faith, published by Zondervan, which is a book I'd recommend you all to read if you are genuinely curious. You have no excuse, there is a range of Christian apologetics that you can read if you want answers:
So, although secondary evidence is still useful. The only way that the mental barriers that people put up before God will be lifted will be through trust, and asking to God to open up your heart so that you may accept Jesus as Lord.
Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 - 3 says the Cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, but for those who are being saved it is the power of God.
Yet you are without excuse, according to the book of Romans chapter 1 as God has made Himself apparent through creation.
Experiences also convince me of my faith, as I can discuss with my Christian friends, all of differing denominations of Christ's faith, and they can all discuss with me about how Christ is working in their lives, and about spiritual challenges and struggles we all have under the armour of the Lord (Ephesians 6).
If you do not understand spiritual experiences, you will forever misunderstand how the average Christian operates.
5) Historical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth -
Writers such as Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and so on reference the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian community in their works. If you take a read of Josephus' - Jewish Antiquities in particular it has references to both Jesus of Nazareth and the Crucifixion, Christians, and James the Righteous and his stoning to death. There is also a broad historical consensus with slight disagreement that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was the site where Jesus was crucified. This gives credence to me that Jesus was indeed crucified. This in particular is a problem for Islam stating that Jesus was not crucified at all.
6) Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the Bible.
Figures such as Xerxes (if you have seen 300 this is the same Xerxes), Nebuchadnezzar, Hezekiah, Sennachera, Balthasar, Darius, Cyrus, and so on have been substantiated in secular historical sources of the age. Likewise, the construction of the walls of Jerusalem, the construction of the 2nd Temple, the captivity of the Judeans and the Israelites, and so on are also backed up historically. Archaeological sites such as the Zedekiahs Cave underneath the city of Jerusalem, King David's Tower, and Biblical sites such as Herod's palace, Temple coins from Jerusalem, Pilates residence in Caesarea, the ruins of the city of Capernaum and so on have all been found, and there are many more promising archaeological projects in the future which may substantiate the Biblical record more over the first few years. I have also mentioned the likelihood of the occurrence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it's citation by many geologists, if you take a look at Google Scholar or JSTOR you will find information on these.
7) Authenticity of the Bible - The New Testament is one of the most widely circulated pieces of work in the Greek world, and it has indeed circulated far further than works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, if we are to reject the New Testament as a reliable and authoriative historical witness to the life of Christ, we would also have to reject works which aren't anywhere near as widely accounted for as the New Testament accounts themselves. The Bible as a whole compiled in two periods, the Tanakh compiled by the Jewish leaders in 450BC, and the Bible including the New Testament was compiled in 360AD at the council of Nicea. However we have evidence through the church fathers that these books were widely used in the first century:
A good youtube video might help on this:
There was perfect reason for the selection of these books over other texts that were released at much later dates.
How these reasons aren't considered logical, are beyond me, quite frankly beyond me. These to me are very very strong indicators of my faith, and of it's truth and validity in the world. Feel free to try and pick them apart now
but the girl in the video is pretty hot0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Upward Spiral wrote: »Ok, that's commendable. So would it be fair to say that you follow an altered version of Christianity? One that happens to disagree with some aspects of scripture?
It's called Protestantism. I personally agree with the Vatican on a lot of issues, but on some I find their interpretation isn't valid.Upward Spiral wrote: »The reason I consider myself to be Atheist is because the Church does not give people a choice in what context they choose to hold their faith. It clearly states what you are supposed to blindly agree with and believe in and states that people who don't believe will be punished. If it was a more philosophical form of preaching/teaching it wouldn't seem so bad, I guess.
Every man should read the Bible for himself. We shouldn't be left blind, but we should have full vision of God's will for us through reading and studying.
A lot of the Bible itself is philosophical, such as the book of John, dealing with who Jesus was in comparison to the more legalistic Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I think it's an important balance to ask. One of my favourite passages is in John when Pilate asks "What is truth?" to JesusUpward Spiral wrote: »But it isn't. The Vatican stand by their old fashioned way of thinking and refuse to adapt to a more modern interpretation of the Bible.
By modern though, I find that some people can alter it from it's original context. I think the Church needs to change the way it does church, rather than the Gospel and the text itself. This applies to the Church of Ireland (my denomination) as well as Catholicism.Upward Spiral wrote: »I have nothing against what others believe in btw. I'm just curious as to how they manage to do it.
Indeed, I like people who are true seekers trying to understand how people like me live our lives, so thanks for your response 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm going to let other religions defend themselves. I have enough reason to believe what I believe, and I'll go through them in headings:
1) Messianic prophesy, over three hundred prophesies concerning the Messiah in the Tanakh were fulfilled by Christ's ministry on the earth. The more of these that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus makes it more and more unlikely that Jesus was indeed not the Messiah. Over 300 checks and balances to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and the Lord is quite an extensive test of validity.
2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.
3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
The probability of the world coming into existence through natural processes, according to Roger Penrose is in the millions of billions of zeroes. 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is quite a huge number. This is commonly deemed by mathematicians and physicists to be mathematical impossibility. It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do would be to look to the possibility of a Creator or a means of causation to explain how the universe came into existence given the co-ordination of the planets in the right distance from the Sun to create life, and the forming of the earth with the correct chemical composition in the universe to sustain life. It is incredible to me to suggest that this world was not created by a supernatural force given that what is natural is frequently observable, what happened in the formation of the earth is not frequently observable by any means. In addition to this, when looking to how the universe has come into being, we can only assess what is within the universe, rather than what is external to it.
It's quite frankly ridiculous that those who believe that miracles are an impossibility can deem that the creation of the world by purely natural means is in anyway more probable. Miracles by their nature are hugely improbable by natural means if and of their own, however if there is a supernatural force behind said miracles by which the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are known, then it is rather probable that indeed that miracles can take place, just as it is quite probable that the universe came into existence through a supernatural force. This gives credence to me that the earth is the creation of God.
The reasoning that William Lane Craig common proponent of the kalam cosmological argument, gives for believing in a God of miracles is as follows:
a) God makes sense of the universes origins.
b) God makes sense of the universes complexity.
c) God makes sense of objective moral values.
d) God makes sense of the resurrection.
e) God can be immediately experienced
(I'll quote from him when dealing with spiritual experiences)
4) Spiritual experiences - These are the strongest witness and conviction of an individuals faith, and this is where the atheist is left to struggle in misunderstanding over these type of issues. William Lane Craig has commonly claimed that the Holy Spirit is the greatest witness to a Christian about the truth of Christianity. If I may give an example from Lee Strobel's Case for Faith, published by Zondervan, which is a book I'd recommend you all to read if you are genuinely curious. You have no excuse, there is a range of Christian apologetics that you can read if you want answers:
So, although secondary evidence is still useful. The only way that the mental barriers that people put up before God will be lifted will be through trust, and asking to God to open up your heart so that you may accept Jesus as Lord.
Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 1 - 3 says the Cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, but for those who are being saved it is the power of God.
Yet you are without excuse, according to the book of Romans chapter 1 as God has made Himself apparent through creation.
Experiences also convince me of my faith, as I can discuss with my Christian friends, all of differing denominations of Christ's faith, and they can all discuss with me about how Christ is working in their lives, and about spiritual challenges and struggles we all have under the armour of the Lord (Ephesians 6).
If you do not understand spiritual experiences, you will forever misunderstand how the average Christian operates.
5) Historical sources for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth -
Writers such as Josephus, Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and so on reference the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian community in their works. If you take a read of Josephus' - Jewish Antiquities in particular it has references to both Jesus of Nazareth and the Crucifixion, Christians, and James the Righteous and his stoning to death. There is also a broad historical consensus with slight disagreement that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was the site where Jesus was crucified. This gives credence to me that Jesus was indeed crucified. This in particular is a problem for Islam stating that Jesus was not crucified at all.
6) Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the Bible.
Figures such as Xerxes (if you have seen 300 this is the same Xerxes), Nebuchadnezzar, Hezekiah, Sennachera, Balthasar, Darius, Cyrus, and so on have been substantiated in secular historical sources of the age. Likewise, the construction of the walls of Jerusalem, the construction of the 2nd Temple, the captivity of the Judeans and the Israelites, and so on are also backed up historically. Archaeological sites such as the Zedekiahs Cave underneath the city of Jerusalem, King David's Tower, and Biblical sites such as Herod's palace, Temple coins from Jerusalem, Pilates residence in Caesarea, the ruins of the city of Capernaum and so on have all been found, and there are many more promising archaeological projects in the future which may substantiate the Biblical record more over the first few years. I have also mentioned the likelihood of the occurrence of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it's citation by many geologists, if you take a look at Google Scholar or JSTOR you will find information on these.
7) Authenticity of the Bible - The New Testament is one of the most widely circulated pieces of work in the Greek world, and it has indeed circulated far further than works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, if we are to reject the New Testament as a reliable and authoriative historical witness to the life of Christ, we would also have to reject works which aren't anywhere near as widely accounted for as the New Testament accounts themselves. The Bible as a whole compiled in two periods, the Tanakh compiled by the Jewish leaders in 450BC, and the Bible including the New Testament was compiled in 360AD at the council of Nicea. However we have evidence through the church fathers that these books were widely used in the first century:
A good youtube video might help on this:
There was perfect reason for the selection of these books over other texts that were released at much later dates.
How these reasons aren't considered logical, are beyond me, quite frankly beyond me. These to me are very very strong indicators of my faith, and of it's truth and validity in the world. Feel free to try and pick them apart now
All of the above can be summarised as:
I actually need to just get a life
I need all the the above and more to validate my life because I can't do it for myself with my own actions.
...and O' - I probably need to get laid more often!
As to the original OP -
Just repeat the following to the old out of date ageing hags:
0 -
-
Don't know enough to comment, but I'm guessing that these prophecies weren't airtight definitions of specific future events, but widely open to different interpretations and easy to fit to the events in Jesus's life.1) Messianic prophesy, over three hundred prophesies concerning the Messiah in the Tanakh were fulfilled by Christ's ministry on the earth. The more of these that were fulfilled in the person of Jesus makes it more and more unlikely that Jesus was indeed not the Messiah. Over 300 checks and balances to show that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and the Lord is quite an extensive test of validity.
That's very weak, in fairness. Look at any cult today. Look at any martyr in history. Witnessing a miracle is not necessary for one to become so strongly believing in something that they would die for it.Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
By that logic, the creation of a higher power doesn't make sense.3) Creation without a higher power does not make sense.
Until there's actual evidence, which there might never be, I'm just going to stick with I don't know exactly how the universe originated.
Misinterpretations of profound, yet natural, feelings, IMO.4) Spiritual experiences
But, unless I'm very much mistaken, can you not apply that logic to the Qur'an also? Or any other religious text?7) Authenticity of the Bible - The New Testament is one of the most widely circulated pieces of work in the Greek world, and it has indeed circulated far further than works of Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, if we are to reject the New Testament as a reliable and authoriative historical witness to the life of Christ, we would also have to reject works which aren't anywhere near as widely accounted for as the New Testament accounts themselves.
Well, you can read above what I think of them.How these reasons aren't considered logical, are beyond me, quite frankly beyond me. These to me are very very strong indicators of my faith, and of it's truth and validity in the world. Feel free to try and pick them apart now
In summary:
I don't know enough about 1.
2 is very weak.
3 is illogical. You believe in a creator which you can't explain where he came from because the universe couldn't have come into existence on its own.
4 is very subjective. I would say it is a bit delusional.
5 and 6 are fine, but only explain that some purely natural (as opposed to supernatural) events from the Bible are possibly true.
If I were to accept 7, I would have to believe that any supernatural event described in any other widely circulated historical text were true also.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_f_veY11k
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement