Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

You're ignoring his point. You have faith that the sun will rise the next day. It ain't necessarily so. I know that when I get on the train every morning that I trust that the driver is capable, even if I cannot know absolutely if that is the case.

The sun rising is a belief supported by a fairly good track record and theoretical underpinning. So faith as it is normally understood in general use is not required. Still, it can never be 100% so if you would like to call the tiny bit of trust needed to get over that doubt faith, then I suppose that's fair enough. Normally I'd use the word faith for things that actually require belief despite contrary support/evidence or with a lack of support/evidence, so answering no to the question "do you have faith that the sun will come up" isn't an unreasonable answer, even if I technically have a tiny amount.

I really wish I knew another word for belief, with that tiny bit of doubt, that was different to faith to avoid confusion. Anybody?

Penn

lmaopml wrote: »

At the end of the day Penn, I think that's a reasonable question - I think it does boil down to whether you believe Jesus and the fact he said he was 'God' or no - In saying that, there is an element of 'faith' (of course) as Zombrex mentions there, however, it's not an 'unreasonable' position. Imo, it's no more unreasonable than making any truth claim, and although I understand that being a rational creature one must rationalise, there comes a point in time when reductionists become fairly ridiculous to me anyways - That is to say, Atheists who base their stance on naturalism and make truth claims about not being able to really know any truth as the ultimate truth. It's an untenable position and imo not actually the way these same people live, love, laugh, and say something is unfair and argue their points against another who says 'that's not fair' - It seems to me that our objective morality etc. while it may be something we have to bash out the details of is in our recognition of the rule that we should be 'fair'...

There is no other religion quite like Christianity. Some try to feed ones tendency towards the spiritual by meditation or living on a higher plain, by isolating oneself from the world, yet others are based on prophets who are pointing the way towards God and coming in his name - There in fact is only one religion that says pretty much, well 'Here I am', 'I am God, and I've come for you....'

When I became ( many years ago ) uncomfortable living as an agnostic, and really quite unconvinced to be honest in my position or lack of one, doubting people who claimed to be 'learned Atheists', I've come across the ones who think they are ubber scientific..lol... because I knew it was a fact that they were stereotyping the Christians I know, love, in fact was brought up with - listening to either sides of a debate, etc. etc. or sometimes not bothering really because my mind was more centred on other things -

I explored faith; my goodness the freedom it gave me, not just some psycological cocktail of needing a crutch (as very many say ) or indeed a feeling that I was uncomfortable with dying, that's no big deal really, shyte happens to everybody. It took me many years to be honest to know where I belong, I always had that..'But...'

I can truthfully say, that there is nothing quite so rational as belief in Christ. It's as rational as belief in Evolution or that I love my Child, or that I have been loved too.

The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Gospels, in fact Christians believe all Scripture is God breathed, it's a 'revelation' if you will leading to the final 'Here I am, for you...' that Christians believe Jesus proclaimed to the world. The question is not so much imo reading it in order to have 'buts...'...rather reading it in order to get to know God, and Jesus and this can take some time and soul searching too.

Firstly, thanks for your response. Without trying to be dismissive and abrupt, my reply to your post will be quite short. But you've proved what I was trying to say. Religion, and to a lesser extent belief in the Bible, requires more than evidence. There isn't evidence for everything in the Bible. You cannot be sure that it is the truth. You have to have faith. Faith that the Bible is true, as opposed to evidence that it it's true. There's nothing wrong with that, but surely it means you can see why some people don't believe in the Bible. They don't have that same faith that it's true.

Festus wrote: »

New question Penn, do you only believe in things that exist?

Interesting question. Short answer would be yes. Long answer would be yyyeeeeessssssssssssss that if something has or can be proven to exist, then I believe that it exists. I don't believe in everything which exists, but I believe it exists. I mean, I wouldn't say I believe in aliens. But I think that with the billions of stars out there, even if each star has the same number of planets with the same number of moons as in our solar system, that in all those planets there is a chance there is some form of life, whether it be humanoid or plant or micro-organism or something, that there is some form of alien life out there. But that's based in logic and probability rather than belief. I don't know if life exists on another planet, but I think it probably does. But until it's actually proven to exist, I don't believe it does. Think it does, but don't believe it.

But I also think that we aren't scientifically advanced enough to be able to prove everything which exists. Possibly will never be. Like I said previously, science can't prove that God doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean he does. Same old argument that science can't prove I don't have the spirit of a pink unicorn on my shoulder. Doesn't mean there is the spirit of a pink unicorn on my shoulder.

philologos wrote: »

You're ignoring his point. You have faith that the sun will rise the next day. It ain't necessarily so. I know that when I get on the train every morning that I trust that the driver is capable, even if I cannot know absolutely if that is the case.

But faith and trust aren't always the same thing. I trust the sun will come up the next day, and I see no reason to believe it won't as we have mountains of evidence to say that it will. Same with the train driver. I don't know he's capable. But the fact that there is training, supervisors, tests and experience that they have to go through in order to be allowed to drive the train means that I trust the system to have allowed a capable driver to drive the train. There's evidence behind it. If there was enough evidence to support the existence of a God, I'd believe he exists. But there isn't.

philologos wrote: »

I would say that I'm more a gnostic theist than an agnostic one. I'm confident strongly that God is there. However, I would be lying if I said that that faith did not waver occasionally.

Knowing God is not "personal omniscience". It is an account of ones relationship with Him that makes that walk make a lot of sense.

I never said 'knowing God' is personal omniscience, I said knowing that God exists is personal omniscience (well actually, I wasn't even really saying that, I was flipping Festus's own argument against him to prove a point). "Knowing God" implies a personal relationship. "Knowing God exists" implies facts and evidence.

philologos wrote: »

Also, faith isn't always blind. God has given me a lot of reason to believe in Him, through seeing Him evident in the world around me, and in comparing the Scriptures with what is occurring in reality. One of the most striking ways that I see that God's word is true, is simply by reading a newspaper, or watching the news and seeing how right God was about our fallen and sinful nature in the Bible.

But again, that's not evidence. When it comes to evidence, to me there are three tests: Would this evidence be admissible in a court of law? Would this evidence be admissible in a scientific study? Is this evidence examinable?

If you didn't already believe in God, you wouldn't read the newspaper or watch the news and think "God was right", because you don't believe God exists. You require faith in God first. Once that's in place, it's quite easy to see God in everything that happens.

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

God punishes evildoers if they don't repent and accept Jesus as their Saviour. Jesus paying the absolute price for sin.

This is whats grates alot of people I think. Whats so special about belief? Can a person not be good, moral and ethical without a belief in Jesus? Is God moral to consider us "evil" for not believing in him, baring in the mind the following - for us to be thrown into existence where little or no tangible evidence is available of his existence, where confusion around the world reigns with multiple religions and heated word spliting debates, due to so much ambuiguity and interpretation. To be considered "evil" for not believing and therefore to be thrown into everlasting fire seems like a situation where the punishment doesnt fit the crime.

The idea of Jesus having to suffer for our sins (vicarious redemption) makes no sense to me and I have never heard a clear and concise counter argument.

Barr125

ISAW wrote: »

I was referring to claims abut theology being rubbish. If you want to discuss claims about the beliefs or philosophies or tenets of atheism then fair enough. Start by stating some of them and while you are at it giv a proper reference to the Festus comment you quoted e.g a message ID.

Alright, I gave the message ID. As for the beliefs/tenets/philosophies of atheism, (I'm sure it has been said time and again here and on the A&A,) Atheism has none of the above. Why is it theists are so intent on making atheism a religion of its own or ideology? It is the null position on the existence of God.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Well then it should be relatively easy for you to point out which bits of theology still make sense without God existing.

From an atheistic point of view? i showed you some academic fields. If you consider academe irrelevant that is your own opinion. Objective academics would not agree with you.

Christian missiology if I'm correct is the study of the correct way Christians should carry out missionary work to be inline with God's teaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missiology
Missiology is a multi-disciplinary and cross-cultural incorporating theology, anthropology, history, geography, theories and methods of communication, comparative religion, Christian apologetics, methodology, and interdenominational relations.

If you dont find academic contributions to the above fields usefull then i czant really help you. You may criticise the personal beliefs of the academics and their motivation but you cant say their contribution didnt exist even if iot was motivated by a false belief.

Kepler for example developed his laws of planetary motion beginning with a religious belief of perfect solids. Because he believed he struggled with equations for years and finally decided on conic sections rather then just circles. He did this because he was religious but you cant claim his science is useless even if god dint exist. the point is that he did what he did because he believed in God. That makes his belief relevant.

How is that relevant if God doesn't exist and thus there would be no correct way?

I think you have a problem with semantics. Look at it this way: one can argue "race" does not exist but "racism" can still exist even in the absence of race.
You yourself and other atheists do not believe Christ existed. But are you going to claim Christianity does not exist?

ISAW

Barr125 wrote: »

Alright, I gave the message ID.

no you didnt! you edited it in today at 9am but you didnt have it in the original post yesterday!
the message http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77615617&postcount=3181
says
Last edited by Barr125; Today at 08:58
but the original was posted Yesterday, 19:19

As for the beliefs/tenets/philosophies of atheism, (I'm sure it has been said time and again here and on the A&A,) Atheism has none of the above.

But christianity HAS! so they are different. you were askeing me why It is not reasonable to declare all of theology nonsense but for festus to say Atheism is rubbish.

Atheism in your view doesnt have the the tenets/beliefs/philosophies of theology
so you are comparing two different things -so the comparative doesn't qualify
It is an apples and oranges argument by your own definition.
It has none -your words- of those things which distinguish theology as not rubbish.

Why is it theists are so intent on making atheism a religion of its own or ideology? It is the null position on the existence of God.

you either have an ideology (and it was atheistic regimes pushed the ideology of atheism not christians) and you compare them or you dont! which is it. it seems yo dont by your definition.
and in another post i am being told missiology is rubbish. But missiology can be applied to atheism!
Atheists believe in the spreading and promotion of atheism.
that is a mission isnt it?

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

The sun rising is a belief supported by a fairly good track record and theoretical underpinning. ...
I really wish I knew another word for belief, with that tiny bit of doubt, that was different to faith to avoid confusion. Anybody?

See my earlier comments about atheistic regims and inductive versus deductive arguments.
the sun rising is using Induction as i use it for any possible future atheist governments. In the past unlike Christianity they always slaughtered and caused ruin. So we can assume they will in future. Like the sun coming up.

tommy2bad

Andrewf20 wrote: »

This is whats grates alot of people I think. Whats so special about belief? Can a person not be good, moral and ethical without a belief in Jesus? Is God moral to consider us "evil" for not believing in him, baring in the mind the following - for us to be thrown into existence where little or no tangible evidence is available of his existence, where confusion around the world reigns with multiple religions and heated word spliting debates, due to so much ambuiguity and interpretation. To be considered "evil" for not believing and therefore to be thrown into everlasting fire seems like a situation where the punishment doesnt fit the crime.

The idea of Jesus having to suffer for our sins (vicarious redemption) makes no sense to me and I have never heard a clear and concise counter argument.

Two parts to that question, second one first. Jesus did not die for our sins in the sense of someone doing 'the far far better thing' and taking the punishment in our stead. It's more a fireman analogy, Jesus dies extinguishing a fire we caused, not because someone must be punished but because He was the only one who could extinguish it even if it cost His life.

'No one can come to the father except through me' is usually interpreted to mean that no one can be saved except by accepting Jesus but it doesn't have to be read that way and isn't exclusively read that way. Early in the morning so I cant recall the references or places where you'll find other definitions of salvation but their are loads. It's about justification and how we are justifies by Jesus and how what was tainted is now acceptable to God and stuff like that. Again I'l say religion is much more than a club it a way of living, you will be saved by how you live not by what you profess, and before the faith and works bulls starts none of this impinges on grace or the sovernignty of God.

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

t if something has or can be proven to exist, then I believe that it exists. I don't believe in everything which exists, but I believe it exists.

But logic tells us there are unprovable propositions.
They will always exist we just cant prove them true.

I mean, I wouldn't say I believe in aliens. But I think that with the billions of stars out there, even if each star has the same number of planets with the same number of moons as in our solar system, that in all those planets there is a chance there is some form of life, whether it be humanoid or plant or micro-organism or something, that there is some form of alien life out there. But that's based in logic and probability rather than belief.

not really. It depends on where you draw the line. Im sure you wouldnt play Russian roulette because there is a one in six chance of you shooting yourself in the head.
also you might think a 1% chance is reasonable and someone else 5% or 50%.
ally you are saying scientifically is that (assuming the variables of the Drake equation is correct and you restrict it to our galaxy) say you end up with a 0.1% of exterrestrial abiogenesis. the percentage doesnt really matter. the point is you either believe or you dont. the fact that yu need a higher percentage like the apostle Thomas isnt a bad thing but you still have to chose to believe or not. An atheist would refuse to believe even if they witnessed a miracle. they would continue to believe it was a trick or they would chose to not even notice it. They would continue to disbelieve whether the percentage was 50% or 90 or 99.9999 the 100% does not require belief.

I don't know if life exists on another planet, but I think it probably does. But until it's actually proven to exist, I don't believe it does. Think it does, but don't believe it.

i dont understand; do you mean you will operate as if it is true but not actually believe it is true and believe instead it is false. Isnt that hypocritical?

But I also think that we aren't scientifically advanced enough to be able to prove everything which exists. Possibly will never be.

indeed ; so what? If you get to 100% belief isnt required.
But you do raise an interesting point. what is a 100% certainty? To you i mean?
Ill bet (pun intended) the certainty you declare is based on a philosophy or belief.

Like I said previously, science can't prove that God doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean he does. Same old argument that science can't prove I don't have the spirit of a pink unicorn on my shoulder. Doesn't mean there is the spirit of a pink unicorn on my shoulder.

We have progressed from the prove a negative level.
What i am exploring here is your attitude to "certainty".

But faith and trust aren't always the same thing. I trust the sun will come up the next day, and I see no reason to believe it won't as we have mountains of evidence to say that it will. Same with the train driver. I don't know he's capable. But the fact that there is training, supervisors, tests and experience that they have to go through in order to be allowed to drive the train means that I trust the system to have allowed a capable driver to drive the train. There's evidence behind it.

Yes skepticism doesn't have to extend into cynicism. We have progressed also from ancient Greece in some ways. i remember meeting the magician skeptic James Randi once and asking him about religion. He did make the point he was not anti religion. He opposed loopy claims which can be tested. especiamlly by charlitans making money on them.
But he said probably nobody checked if the seat they were sitting on was secure before they sat down. (Ironically I did)

If there was enough evidence to support the existence of a God, I'd believe he exists. But there isn't.

for you? depends wher you draw the line. what would convince you and i dont mean "perform a miracle on demand" because
1. that may be a 100% thing -no belief necessary first
2. somez claim the Mass is a miracle happining every day -but you have to believe first

so somewhere in between 1 and 2.

Id suggest you are probably right at 1
In which case "enough evidence " becomes "certainty" and that doesnt require belief.

"Knowing God" implies a personal relationship. "Knowing God exists" implies facts and evidence.

But not just scientific fact and scientific evidence! Science isnt enough for society why would it be enough to encompass God.
Science cant tell us whether or not we should use nuclear weapons.
so on what evidence do we rely to decide on how or when to use them?
Science can inform our opinion as to economic cost or environmental damage or number of deaths but it cant prove with evidence that we should use them.

But again, that's not evidence. When it comes to evidence, to me there are three tests: Would this evidence be admissible in a court of law? Would this evidence be admissible in a scientific study? Is this evidence examinable?

a good beginning. As science cant say it what courtroom evidence do you claim can decide whether or not to commit genocide or use WMD?

If you didn't already believe in God, you wouldn't read the newspaper or watch the news and think "God was right", because you don't believe God exists.

I rarely admit my personal beliefs. But whatever they are I dont read the papers or watch the news.
[/quote]
You require faith in God first. Once that's in place, it's quite easy to see God in everything that happens.[/QUOTE]

As it is for faith in the laws of physics.

tommy2bad

Barr125 wrote: »

Alright, I gave the message ID. As for the beliefs/tenets/philosophies of atheism, (I'm sure it has been said time and again here and on the A&A,) Atheism has none of the above. Why is it theists are so intent on making atheism a religion of its own or ideology? It is the null position on the existence of God.

Dawkins and the militant atheist movement. Seems its hard to live without some ideology for some people and railing against theism has become one for some people.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

See my earlier comments about atheistic regims and inductive versus deductive arguments.
the sun rising is using Induction as i use it for any possible future atheist governments. In the past unlike Christianity they always slaughtered and caused ruin. So we can assume they will in future. Like the sun coming up.

This is an inference you have consistently failed to support. I have patiently, and repeatedly, pointed out that such regimes slaughtered millions not because they were atheistic, but because they were oppressors of human rights, engaging in large scale social experiments like agrarian socialism. Similarly, millions were slaughtered by Nazis, King Leopold of Belgium, and others not because they were theistic, but because they were totalitarian oppressors of human rights, engaging in large-scale social experiments.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Barr125

ISAW wrote: »

no you didnt! you edited it in today at 9am but you didnt have it in the original post yesterday!
the message http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77615617&postcount=3181
says
Last edited by Barr125; Today at 08:58
but the original was posted Yesterday, 19:19



But christianity HAS! so they are different. you were askeing me why It is not reasonable to declare all of theology nonsense but for festus to say Atheism is rubbish.

Atheism in your view doesnt have the the tenets/beliefs/philosophies of theology
so you are comparing two different things -so the comparative doesn't qualify
It is an apples and oranges argument by your own definition.
It has none -your words- of those things which distinguish theology as not rubbish.



you either have an ideology (and it was atheistic regimes pushed the ideology of atheism not christians) and you compare them or you dont! which is it. it seems yo dont by your definition.
and in another post i am being told missiology is rubbish. But missiology can be applied to atheism!
Atheists believe in the spreading and promotion of atheism.
that is a mission isnt it?

I never claimed that I didn't edit it today nor did I say the link was in the original. You asked me to reference the post, so I went back and put the link to the quote.

Of course they're different, again, who's claiming that they're similar or the same?

I'm pretty sure that that is the Atheism in every atheists view. And how does having tenets/beliefs/philosophies make you ''not rubbish''? And by that, you're agreeing with Festus that atheism is rubbish?

What argument?? What comparative?? You're putting words in my mouth.

Why are you asking me about missiology? Ask the person who said it.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Interesting question. Short answer would be yes. Long answer would be yyyeeeeessssssssssssss that if something has or can be proven to exist, then I believe that it exists. I don't believe in everything which exists, but I believe it exists. I mean, I wouldn't say I believe in aliens. But I think that with the billions of stars out there, even if each star has the same number of planets with the same number of moons as in our solar system, that in all those planets there is a chance there is some form of life, whether it be humanoid or plant or micro-organism or something, that there is some form of alien life out there. But that's based in logic and probability rather than belief. I don't know if life exists on another planet, but I think it probably does. But until it's actually proven to exist, I don't believe it does. Think it does, but don't believe it.

Lets go with the short answer and expand.

Can you explain to me why you do not believe in i?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Lets go with the short answer and expand.

Can you explain to me why you do not believe in i?

Why I don't believe in "i"?

Festus

Penn wrote: »

Why I don't believe in "i"?

Correct. Italic i. Also known as the square root of minus one

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Correct. Italic i. Also known as the square root of minus one

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

Fair enough. A mathematician or physicist can pick up if they so desire.

Easier question. Do you accept that Jesus Christ lived and walk the Earth as a man roughly 2000 years ago?

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Fair enough. A mathematician or physicist can pick up if they so desire.

I'm aware of i, I simply don't understand your question of "Why don't I believe in i?". But to be honest, I think this question would end up being a rabbit-hole of a question, so I'd like to move on to your second question.

Festus wrote: »

Easier question. Do you accept that Jesus Christ lived and walk the Earth as a man roughly 2000 years ago?

I think it's likely a man named Jesus may have lived 2000 years ago, and may have preached the word of God, maybe even claimed he was the son of God, and may have been crucified. I do not accept the Biblical account of Jesus' life and the miracles it claims he performed. I also don't accept his resurrection or conception.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

I'm aware of i, I simply don't understand your question of "Why don't I believe in i?". But to be honest, I think this question would end up being a rabbit-hole of a question, so I'd like to move on to your second question.

Not really. Either you believe in i or you do not.

Are you afraid of rabbit holes? Still taking the blue pills?

Penn wrote: »

I think it's likely a man named Jesus may have lived 2000 years ago, and may have preached the word of God, maybe even claimed he was the son of God, and may have been crucified. I do not accept the Biblical account of Jesus' life and the miracles it claims he performed. I also don't accept his resurrection or conception.

This is not a question on probablilty. Either you accept Jesus was a real person or you do not.

Perhaps you would prefer if it I asked do you believe Jesus Christ walked the earth approximately 2000 years ago?

Andrewf20

tommy2bad wrote: »

'No one can come to the father except through me' is usually interpreted to mean that no one can be saved except by accepting Jesus but it doesn't have to be read that way and isn't exclusively read that way. Early in the morning so I cant recall the references or places where you'll find other definitions of salvation but their are loads. It's about justification and how we are justifies by Jesus and how what was tainted is now acceptable to God and stuff like that. Again I'l say religion is much more than a club it a way of living, you will be saved by how you live not by what you profess, and before the faith and works bulls starts none of this impinges on grace or the sovernignty of God.

But again, what is so special about belief? I agree that religon may be used as a guide to live our lives but putting the bible into practice doesnt require in believing that it was inspired by a supernatural deity imo.

John 3:16 the Bible says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The treat of eternal damnation is an infinitely unfair punishment to those who may not or cannot believe in the biblical testimonies, but yet may live ethical and moral lives. This is especially true when so much skepticism reigns.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Not really. Either you believe in i or you do not.

And again, it's not a question of belief. You're talking about something which is literally, an 'imaginary number'. However, it is a concept used to solve a problem of creating a square for -1. It is a mathematical solution to a mathematical problem. It's like asking me "Do you believe that is called a table?" while pointing to a table. The word table is what we use to describe what we commonly know to be a table.

Festus wrote: »

Are you afraid of rabbit holes? Still taking the blue pills?

When it comes to forum discussions, rabbit-holes are bad things, because if we continued along the "i" route, we would be two non-mathematicians arguing semantics of a mathematical problem trying to determine if God is real. If we're going to discuss religion, let's get down to the nitty-gritty and discuss religion. If your religion is right, it shouldn't need a maths analogy to prove itself.

Festus wrote: »

This is not a question on probablilty. Either you accept Jesus was a real person or you do not.

But that's like asking me "Does a man named Jeff Anderson live in Kentucky?". There could be a Jeff Anderson living in Kentucky. Odds are, there very well could be. Just like do I accept a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago. There might have been. There might be a stone somewhere which has "Jesus was here 1/1/0000". It doesn't prove that Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible existed, but simply that a man named Jesus existed around that time period.

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you would prefer if it I asked do you believe Jesus Christ walked the earth approximately 2000 years ago?

In that case, no. Jesus Christ to me would signify, not a man named Jesus, but the Son of God, Jesus Christ who performed miracles and rose from the dead etc. No. I do not believe he was a real person, as depicted in the Bible. A man named Jesus who shared similar traits and who Jesus Christ was based on, maybe, but not the actual son of God.

tommy2bad

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But again, what is so special about belief? I agree that religon may be used as a guide to live our lives but putting the bible into practice doesnt require in believing that it was inspired by a supernatural deity imo.

John 3:16 the Bible says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The treat of eternal damnation is an infinitely unfair punishment to those who may not or cannot believe in the biblical testimonies, but yet many live ethical and moral lives.

I think we are a bit hung up on the term belief. As it used now it has a different connotation than when John wrote the gospel. BTW that quote says nothing about damnation, its about life or death. Eternal life is what we were designed for, the design was broken, Jesus fixed it so we could regain our birthright. Dose anyone really believe that God would have neglected everyone but the Jews? Everyone born before Jesus? Everyone who never could have heard of Jesus? It's a small god you worship if you do.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

In that case, no. Jesus Christ to me would signify, not a man named Jesus, but the Son of God, Jesus Christ who performed miracles and rose from the dead etc. No. I do not believe he was a real person, as depicted in the Bible. A man named Jesus who shared similar traits and who Jesus Christ was based on, maybe, but not the actual son of God.

Interesting. Who started Christianity?

tommy2bad

Festus wrote: »

Interesting. Who started Christianity?

Paul, haven't you been paying atention.

mr.mickels

tommy2bad wrote: »

I think we are a bit hung up on the term belief. As it used now it has a different connotation than when John wrote the gospel. BTW that quote says nothing about damnation, its about life or death. Eternal life is what we were designed for, the design was broken, Jesus fixed it so we could regain our birthright. Dose anyone really believe that God would have neglected everyone but the Jews? Everyone born before Jesus? Everyone who never could have heard of Jesus? It's a small god you worship if you do.

There were non-israelites with the Israelites right from the beginning when Moshe (or Moses as he is called in the west) lead the Israelites out of Egypt. All nations always had the opportunity to join the family of Abraham. There were non-Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai when the commandments were given. Many orthodox jews like to imagine their Elohim (God as you call him) is only for them but their own scriptures shows this is not the case. Also would point out that the Messiah Yahshua (whom was very incorrectly translated to english as Jesus Christ in the late 1700's) said he was sent primarily to save the Jews as they had strayed from following the teachings of Moshe and instead had invented their own religions such as the Pharisees law and Sadducees, and this still continues today in Rabbinical law. After the Messiah's passing and resurection Shaul and Shimon Kefa (St. Paul and St. Peter in the west) were then sent to teach the nations. I would also point out that Orthodox Jews often like to use the word "Goyim" to mean "Gentiles" as a very derrogatroy word for non-Jews, and often using the words ignorant goyim for us. However this is a use of the word that was never intended by scriptures. In their Tanakh or Old Testament the word Goyim is translated to english as Gentiles 30 times or so. The same word Goyim is translated to "Nations" in english some 370 times!!! This is the correct translation of Goyim and gives a very different view of the word and those orthodox jews are using the phrase very ignorantly. When reading Bere**** or Genesis you will see the verses where Abraham is being instructed to leave his old country and YHWH tells him he will make him a great nation of his seed, well this is the word Goyim in the Hebrew.
Orthodox jews don't like to be reminded we are all descended from Noach either.

It is also recorded in the Hebrew Tanakh that King Solomon was pledging to teach all non-jewish visitors to Israel about his Elohim. Non-jews, or gentiles as they/we are often refered were always entitled to join the Israelites family. Even Moshe's wife was Ethiopian.

Lady Chuckles

I just had a little pondering. I wouldn't normally share it here, but I will anyway

I think it is interesting that people are looking for proof in something spiritual
Then, at least for me it turns philosophical and I quite like it. I like thinking - and questioning - everything to myself every so often. What ever springs to mind ... How can we know anything for sure? What makes something a truth?

... And at the end of the day, I think what each and every one choose to believe (or know, if you'd dare) is great. As long as you have patience and respect for those who don't share your views

Debating is never wrong, nor is respectful questioning.

Penn

Festus wrote: »

Interesting. Who started Christianity?

People with good intentions but bad execution.

People who believed that a man named Jesus was the Son of God. Why would they believe that? Well, he may have told them stories like the one I alluded to earlier regarding the temptation of Christ (where there were no witnesses). Then, they may have embellished certain facts about his life (changing "He helped the sick" into "He healed the sick"). For example, what about the cure of the bleeding woman? A woman is bleeding for 12 years and is cured by Jesus? This was 2000 years ago where the life expectancy was <30, and she was bleeding for 12 years? Who said she was bleeding for 12 years? It's in the Bible, but it doesn't say she told Jesus she was bleeding for 12 years. Nobody asked her how long she was bleeding for. How did the people who wrote the Bible know she was bleeding for 12 years?

He may also have claimed to have received messages from God. He may have claimed his mother was visited by an angel and he was immaculately conceived. Cult leaders often make claims of wonder which their followers believe. Look at Jim Jones or others (not comparing Jesus to them, but simply demonstrating how people can and will believe almost anything without proof). Just because people believed it 2000 years ago when very little was known about science and the world, doesn't make it true.

Again, where is the evidence other than the Bible? Why are there contradictions in the Bible? Why is there no real substantial proof that he was the Son of God other than some pages of a book where someone writes about what they claim to have seen or heard about?

muppeteer

Penn wrote: »

This was 2000 years ago where the life expectancy was <30, and she was bleeding for 12 years?

To be a pedant average life expectancy would be far less than 30. Mostly due to childhood mortality so even back then, there were still loads of 40, 50 and 60 year old's. Some even with long term illnesses.

Festus

Penn wrote: »

People with good intentions but bad execution.

People who believed that a man named Jesus was the Son of God. Why would they believe that? Well, he may have told them stories like the one I alluded to earlier regarding the temptation of Christ (where there were no witnesses). Then, they may have embellished certain facts about his life (changing "He helped the sick" into "He healed the sick"). For example, what about the cure of the bleeding woman? A woman is bleeding for 12 years and is cured by Jesus? This was 2000 years ago where the life expectancy was <30, and she was bleeding for 12 years? Who said she was bleeding for 12 years? It's in the Bible, but it doesn't say she told Jesus she was bleeding for 12 years. Nobody asked her how long she was bleeding for. How did the people who wrote the Bible know she was bleeding for 12 years?

He may also have claimed to have received messages from God. He may have claimed his mother was visited by an angel and he was immaculately conceived. Cult leaders often make claims of wonder which their followers believe. Look at Jim Jones or others (not comparing Jesus to them, but simply demonstrating how people can and will believe almost anything without proof). Just because people believed it 2000 years ago when very little was known about science and the world, doesn't make it true.

Again, where is the evidence other than the Bible? Why are there contradictions in the Bible? Why is there no real substantial proof that he was the Son of God other than some pages of a book where someone writes about what they claim to have seen or heard about?

Perhaps you need a different question.

Who do you hate more, Jews, Muslims or Christians?