Pregnancy from rape is 'God's will' - Apparentely

Ghost Buster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ahh yes. Yet another "religion" thread. Que people of faith vs atheists. :rolleyes:
While in reality it was just one man who said these comments.

These sort of posts are actually much more common than religion based threads and doubly more annoying.
AH have posts on every topic so why not religion? And why is it only religion that gets these "OH look a religion post" comments?
There are post on AH about sport, tv, politics etc etc etc all of which tiopics have dedicated fora.
Special pleading ?

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

Charming, that isn't what I said. What I said was that rape isn't a good thing whatsoever at all and neither did he.

What I did say is that a life irrespective of how it is conceived is still a great blessing.

How about you put away the expletives and stop strawmanning what I'm saying with faux-outrage?

Pregnancy is a result of biology. Your dressing it up in idealistic fairy tale miracle nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Odysseus

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

I do understand that a woman put in this position might (and would) tell nobody about it, but I would be thinking this would be in the minority,


I would be guessing (the not telling anyone) would be a small number, so while the person who has been violated would or might feel shame, there is a good chance they would talk to someone about their experience,

Not in my experience, I don't have any stats, but a lot of the women I would see have not reported it, and do not tell others about their experience.

Odysseus

Apologies, double post!!

philologos

g'em wrote: »

This is why these discussions will always become so heated and so difficult, and ne'er the twain shall the two sides meet.

Because I believe and trust in Jesus? - Indeed, should I just go and recant quietly?

g'em wrote: »

You are basing your views and beliefs on what your religion tells you to believe. It can be argued that it's not really your own free will. As you've said above forgiveness is "commanded of [you]" by a higher power. That's what you believe, I have no choice but to respect that. Thankfully we are allowed to hold our independent beliefs and the worst thing that happens is that we have an argy bargy on an internet forum.

I base my life around Jesus Christ, and I'm thankful each and every day for His mercy towards me. Indeed, from a Christian perspective, if I didn't I'd be in the fundamental denial of what is reality.

Forgiveness is commanded of all people. God has revealed to all men that they should repent and believe in the Gospel. Some do, and some don't.

By the by, you do have another choice actually. You can disrespect my beliefs. In some ways I prefer that people are vocally opposed to it, because at least then I can see that there is a real objection. I've had people come to me and say "well sure, that's great for you". That's the worst to hear, because when you think about it logically. It's not about what's good for me, it's about what's true. This is where I agree strongly with the new-atheists on this forum. Not all beliefs can be true. Indeed, when I was an agnostic, I realised that my position was deeply illogical, but I was simply just confused about it all. It's partially what led me to look into the claims of atheists, Muslims, Christians and those of other faiths.

Is the worst thing that we have an argy bargy? I don't believe so. Some of the most educational times I've had discussing religion whether it has been inviting some Muslim friends around for dinner or discussing with colleagues, or discussing with non-believing friends has been the differences.

g'em wrote: »

There is something entirely more sinister and worrying here though that jill_valentine has alluded to. The man in the OP is a US Senate candidate. He is expressing his belief that children created by rape should not be aborted because they are a blessing, God decrees it so. Now it's no longer you, philologos, and me, g'em, having a discussion on the internet, now it's about a man who will potentially be involved in the decision making for a whole nation. This is a man potentially making decisions on the rights of women who do not share his beliefs. What he believes in a religious capacity cannot and should not become National policy. It's not what the US Constitution is built on. This is what is so utterly terrifying about the current state of US affairs. Republican are declaring that if in power they will make decisions about what a woman can or cannot do to their body according to what their religion dictates, not the woman's.

That's where it becomes more serious certainly. I make clear that when I'm pointing to Jesus, or when I'm discussing about God's sovereignty, it's not about me anymore. It's about the Lord Jesus. This isn't just about mere opinion, it's about what is true.

For the record, if you're referring to the abortion debate. The reason why it is difficult (and it isn't on the basis of religion, there are atheist and agnostic pro-life people) is that there is a conflict of rights. The pro-life position is the only one that adequately considers the rights of the child. This argument is dirty at the best of times, but we need to get stuck in because this is genuinely about the human rights both of mother and child. We need to find a reasonable compromise on this issue. I don't feel that compromise is of necessity to kill the child.

That issue can be argued from an entirely secular platform, and I've done that before on this forum.

g'em wrote: »

If I lived in the US should I as a woman have to adhere to the religious beliefs of a government? It's essentially asking me to put my own free will aside. Putting your own beliefs aside can you understand, in the much greater scheme of things, how the beliefs that you share with this man have such a horrifying prospective impact on 50% of the population?

The abortion issue isn't necessarily about religion. It's a human rights issue.

I find it disingenuous to claim that this is a male / female issue. There are women who are pro-life also.

I understand that rape is horrific. I also understand that abortion is horrific. My perspective on the issue, would be to put more police resources into dealing with sexual assault rather than claiming X or Y about abortion. For the record, I've also made it quite clear that if a woman has or will have or has an abortion already, that I have no grounds to judge her on the basis of my faith.

I find this topic frustrating because everyone who has responded in such a way so far has intentionally refused to consider what my posts are actually saying, while adding plenty of their own assumptions on top. This doesn't allow for a good discussion at all really.

folan

if it, or anything, occurs from gods will, then why did god give man free will? did god give man free will?

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

I understand that rape is horrific. I also understand that abortion is horrific. My perspective on the issue, would be to put more police resources into dealing with sexual assault rather than claiming X or Y about abortion. For the record, I've also made it quite clear that if a woman has or will have or has an abortion already, that I have no grounds to judge her on the basis of my faith.

.

Unless every female is accompanied by a guard of some description 24 hours a day, rape and sexual assault will, unfortunately, occur. Seeing as theres no intention of subjecting women to a policed existence, there is understandbly a need to focus on how to help the victims of deviant behaviour. It's generally believed that forcing a woman to carry the result of a violent attack is unjustifiable.

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

I find this topic frustrating because everyone who has responded in such a way so far has intentionally refused to consider what my posts are actually saying, while adding plenty of their own assumptions on top. This doesn't allow for a good discussion at all really.

but you talk about having a good discussion and then you post this:

I base my life around Jesus Christ, and I'm thankful each and every day for His mercy towards me. Indeed, from a Christian perspective, if I didn't I'd be in the fundamental denial of what is reality.

That has no part in any discussion with non-Christians about rape and abortion. Just as the Koran, Mein Kampf or a harry potter novel has no place either.

kylith

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't stand Christians talking about terrible things being part of "gods plan", I don't understand how someone can rationalise something so terrible as a rape or the death of a young child or something equally tragic.

I think rape is probably one of the worst things that can happen to a person and for a woman who finds herself pregnant as a result and who decides she wants to abort the baby then she should be able to do so without being made to feel she is gulity or somehow worse than her rapist for making that choice.

She has been through a horrific experience and should be treated with complete respect and compassion and not be judged.

I don't understand how they can say that things like rape are part of their god's plan, then go out and protest things. If two gay people want to get married, then that must be god's plan. Is someone has sex out of wedlock and gets pregnant, that must be god's plan too. If someone uses contraception - god's plan. If a woman gets an abortion then it must be part of god's plan that she terminates that pregnancy. If everything that happens is part of some ineffable plan then EVERYTHING that happens is part of that ineffable plan, and shouldn't be interfered with by self-righteous busy-bodies with too much time on their hands.

To say that these things are not part of their god's plan would mean that their god is not omnipotent, as another being is capable of overriding that god's plan. He's not much of an omnipotent creator if his entire plan can be derailed by the actions of a few apes.

Godge

robman60 wrote: »

While I respect philologos view and agree with it in some ways, I think he's failing to get his point across properly.

Here's an example which I think gets the position across quite well. (It's actually a true story, too).

A woman, who was trying to start a family with her partner was raped. Some time after the rape she found out she was pregnant. Assuming that the father was the rapist, she aborted the child, but requested that a DNA test be carried out on the child to see whose the child was. To her horror, the child she'd aborted was actually her partner's. She was devastated because her child's life was over (this is how it was written in the article as far as I recall, please don't start telling me it wasn't a life or something, that's a separate debate). The question is, if you value life in the womb as a living individual of the human race, the means of conception cannot affect the value of the life.

As absolutely horrific and disgusting as rape is, it doesn't have an effect on how I value the innocent child. When I hear these silly statements - and by any standards, the statement is ludicrous - I think in some way this is what the person is trying to get across.


Edit: Philologos: You've made your position much clearer in the above post.

Also, I think it's worth adding that when people say the child conceived by rape is a blessing, it doesn't necessarily mean a religious blessing. Rather that the child's life and existence is an earthly blessing. That's how I interpret it, at least.

Do you have a link to some respected non-Christian media outlet to back up the story you told or is it just an anecdote, which nobody can say whether it is true or not?

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

but you talk about having a good discussion and then you post this:

I don't see any good reason why I should deny who I am in a discussion. I don't think you should either. The topic of this thread is around the Christian beliefs of a US Senator.

Leftist wrote: »

That has no part in any discussion with non-Christians about rape and abortion. Just as the Koran, Mein Kampf or a harry potter novel has no place either.

I guess if you compare the Bible to Mein Kampf you have no interest in having a good discussion either

See above. If you have any problems with my position, or posts, or if you think I've crossed any lines. Please press the "Report Post" button (the little hazard sign at the bottom the area where your avatar is) and an After Hours moderator will sort me out. I will fully comply with any warning that I receive on thread. Those are the people which have been given the due authority over this forum as to what I post, and when.

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

I don't see any good reason why I should deny who I am in a discussion. I don't think you should either. The topic of this thread is around the Christian beliefs of a US Senator.



I guess if you compare the Bible to Mein Kampf you have no interest in having a good discussion either

See above. If you have any problems with my position, or posts, or if you think I've crossed any lines. Please press the "Report Post" button (the little hazard sign at the bottom the area where your avatar is) and an After Hours moderator will sort me out. I will fully comply with any warning that I receive on thread. Those are the people which have been given the due authority over this forum as to what I post, and when.

I don't feel any need to report you as I don't find it offensive or insulting. I can't see why you would jump to that conclusion.

btw many people 'believed' in mein kampf. Obviously the tones are different but they're both belief compasses. You are told what to believe by a book completely littered with falseties.

Either way... I don't mind, your perogative as long as you and the other believers do not use this belief when making decisions for everyone... like this republican running for senate election. A radical fundamentalist calling rape as god's will and he wants to be the representitive of the people. That is frightening.

g'em

philologos wrote: »

Because I believe and trust in Jesus? - Indeed, should I just go and recant quietly?

Did I ever mention such a thing? Don't lambast others for misreading your text when you do the same

Forgiveness is commanded of all people. God has revealed to all men that they should repent and believe in the Gospel. Some do, and some don't.

Again, unfortunately according to your belief we are subject to what your God says we should or shouldn't do. It's not just what you should do, it's what we should all do. Your beliefs do not dictate my life. According to you they do, according to me they don't.

By the by, you do have another choice actually. You can disrespect my beliefs. In some ways I prefer that people are vocally opposed to it, because at least then I can see that there is a real objection. I've had people come to me and say "well sure, that's great for you". That's the worst to hear, because when you think about it logically. It's not about what's good for me, it's about what's true. This is where I agree strongly with the new-atheists on this forum. Not all beliefs can be true. Indeed, when I was an agnostic, I realised that my position was deeply illogical, but I was simply just confused about it all. It's partially what led me to look into the claims of atheists, Muslims, Christians and those of other faiths.

I choose to respect your beliefs. I do not agree with them, but I respect them.

Is the worst thing that we have an argy bargy? I don't believe so. Some of the most educational times I've had discussing religion whether it has been inviting some Muslim friends around for dinner or discussing with colleagues, or discussing with non-believing friends has been the differences.

'Worst' as in the biggest aspect it will happen in our lives. You and I talking will not impact on my life in any meaningful way. A US Senator dictating that children created from rape should not be aborted will potentially impact on thousands of women's lives in very meaningful ways.

That's where it becomes more serious certainly. I make clear that when I'm pointing to Jesus, or when I'm discussing about God's sovereignty, it's not about me anymore. It's about the Lord Jesus. This isn't just about mere opinion, it's about what is true.

True according to your beliefs. You're pretty much proving my point here.

For the record, if you're referring to the abortion debate. The reason why it is difficult (and it isn't on the basis of religion, there are atheist and agnostic pro-life people) is that there is a conflict of rights. The pro-life position is the only one that adequately considers the rights of the child. This argument is dirty at the best of times, but we need to get stuck in because this is genuinely about the human rights both of mother and child. We need to find a reasonable compromise on this issue. I don't feel that compromise is of necessity to kill the child.

You are concentrating on the rights of the child; I am arguing that the rights of the mother are being completely ignored by this man and his beliefs. She is forced to adhere to the beliefs of her government.

The abortion issue isn't necessarily about religion. It's a human rights issue.

Absolutely. And it's the woman's rights who are being contravened by what this man is saying.

I find it disingenuous to claim that this is a male / female issue. There are women who are pro-life also.

As I keep reiterating, I am speaking about the man in the OP. He is dictating what his religious beliefs are that impact the women of a nation. If you want to though we could talk about Todd Akin who claimed that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" or the War on Women from the entire GOP. Like it or not, there are male/female issues there.

Godge

philologos wrote: »

. For the record, I've also made it quite clear that if a woman has or will have or has an abortion already, that I have no grounds to judge her on the basis of my faith.

.

This is where I have a problem with the Roman Catholic view of the abortion issue.

It is hypocritical to make a statement that you have no grounds to judge a person who has had an abortion on the basis of your faith when at the same time, on the basis of your faith, your Church is campaigning to ensure that no abortion is permitted under law and that its view of the issue is imposed on everyone and not just its members.

It is the same thing as saying you have no grounds to judge a murderer, thief, serial killer, Franco, Gadaffi or any other murdeous dictator, rapist or pedophile priest on the basis of your faith. Yet the church has judged some of them.

If only religious apologists could be honest about this. Ordinary christian forgiveness is not enough to say you don't judge people who have an abortion when the church adopts a public position on the issue.

eviltwin

Godge wrote: »

This is where I have a problem with the Roman Catholic view of the abortion issue.

It is hypocritical to make a statement that you have no grounds to judge a person who has had an abortion on the basis of your faith when at the same time, on the basis of your faith, your Church is campaigning to ensure that no abortion is permitted under law and that its view of the issue is imposed on everyone and not just its members.

It is the same thing as saying you have no grounds to judge a murderer, thief, serial killer, Franco, Gadaffi or any other murdeous dictator, rapist or pedophile priest on the basis of your faith. Yet the church has judged some of them.

If only religious apologists could be honest about this. Ordinary christian forgiveness is not enough to say you don't judge people who have an abortion when the church adopts a public position on the issue.

Of course Catholics judge women who have had abortions, you only have to look at the language used by them to see that....abortion is "murder", the emotive and false images they use of so called aborted babies, the rubbish they come out with that women use abortion as a form of contraception. They have zero interest in talking to people who have been in that position unless they are regretful of their experience. They have no time for any women who says it was the right thing to do and actually believe she just needs to admit she is hurt.

Granted not all Catholics are like this but many are and to say that is not the case is just lies.

krudler

eviltwin wrote: »

Of course Catholics judge women who have had abortions, you only have to look at the language used by them to see that....abortion is "murder", the emotive and false images they use of so called aborted babies, the rubbish they come out with that women use abortion as a form of contraception. They have zero interest in talking to people who have been in that position unless they are regretful of their experience. They have no time for any women who says it was the right thing to do and actually believe she just needs to admit she is hurt.

Granted not all Catholics are like this but many are and to say that is not the case is just lies.

the scumbags at Youth Defence being a prime example.

Agricola

philologos wrote: »

I guess if you compare the Bible to Mein Kampf you have no interest in having a good discussion either

Yes an unfair comparison, given that Hitler's book didnt routinely and explicitly call for genocide! But that's the old testament of course, we should just forget about all that nastiness.

It will be a great day when society is sufficiently enlightened that we can forget about the whole lot of it, imo. If people want a nice fairytale with which to teach their kids right from wrong, fine. But don't draw up legislation based on it which affects the lives of millions of people.

Sarky

Christ, no. These bible needs to be remembered, lest we ever end up believing anything that dangerous and crazy again.

philologos

g'em wrote: »

Did I ever mention such a thing? Don't lambast others for misreading your text when you do the same

Well, I just read that you said the following in respect to me saying "what Jesus has commanded me":

This is why these discussions will always become so heated and so difficult, and ne'er the twain shall the two sides meet.

It sounds like if I just became an atheist that this discussion would become so much easier. The reality is I believe in a holy and righteous God who will judge the world one day.

g'em wrote: »

Again, unfortunately according to your belief we are subject to what your God says we should or shouldn't do. It's not just what you should do, it's what we should all do. Your beliefs do not dictate my life. According to you they do, according to me they don't.

No, my beliefs don't dictate anything, but I will hold them, and I will base my philosophy around them because it seems reasonable for me to do so (I.E - I've thought quite a bit about them, it's not blind). You can base your philosophy around anything else that you like, but I'm a Christian and I live and speak for Jesus in my daily life, and I long for others to do the same. I can't and won't deny that.

g'em wrote: »

I choose to respect your beliefs. I do not agree with them, but I respect them.
'Worst' as in the biggest aspect it will happen in our lives. You and I talking will not impact on my life in any meaningful way. A US Senator dictating that children created from rape should not be aborted will potentially impact on thousands of women's lives in very meaningful ways.

I don't know how you can respect them then. I don't strive to respect of necessity the belief systems that others hold, but rather their right to hold them in a free society. Funnily enough I think this is

g'em wrote: »

True according to your beliefs. You're pretty much proving my point here.
You are concentrating on the rights of the child; I am arguing that the rights of the mother are being completely ignored by this man and his beliefs. She is forced to adhere to the beliefs of her government.

Why shouldn't we consider both mother and child in this? Rather than just one? That's what my position aims to do. Consideration of both mother and child makes this issue a lot more difficult I think rather than just considering the rights of the mother.

g'em wrote: »

Absolutely. And it's the woman's rights who are being contravened by what this man is saying.

Not quite, see above and you'll see if we want to give both consideration it becomes a lot more difficult.

g'em wrote: »

As I keep reiterating, I am speaking about the man in the OP. He is dictating what his religious beliefs are that impact the women of a nation. If you want to though we could talk about Todd Akin who claimed that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" or the War on Women from the entire GOP. Like it or not, there are male/female issues there.

Phrasing a pro-life position as a "War on Women" is just something I find difficult to accept when this isn't of necessity a male / female divide. It irks me a bit when people try to claim such repeatedly when it isn't true.

Godge wrote: »

This is where I have a problem with the Roman Catholic view of the abortion issue.

Then you don't have to worry, I'm an evangelical Christian.

Godge wrote: »

It is hypocritical to make a statement that you have no grounds to judge a person who has had an abortion on the basis of your faith when at the same time, on the basis of your faith, your Church is campaigning to ensure that no abortion is permitted under law and that its view of the issue is imposed on everyone and not just its members.

See above. I'm not a Roman Catholic. I happen support a pro-life position because I value human life in this. I'm also opposed to the death penalty or euthanasia.

It's not hypocritical to say that I have no right to judge. If you genuinely believe it is hypocritical you have no idea of what Christians believe happened on the cross. Jesus died for my sin and through His death on Calvary and His resurrection three days later I was forgiven. If He did that for me, what right do I have to cast aspersions or judgement on others for their sin. If you want to ask me more about this, and how it affects my view of the world feel free.

Godge wrote: »

It is the same thing as saying you have no grounds to judge a murderer, thief, serial killer, Franco, Gadaffi or any other murdeous dictator, rapist or pedophile priest on the basis of your faith. Yet the church has judged some of them.

In respect to God and His judgement. I don't. It's not my call as to what happens to any of them. By the by, I believe that a murderer, thief, serial killer, dictator, rapist, pedophiles (of any kind) can change their lives completely and repent. That is how radical Christianity is. People can be transformed entirely.

Godge wrote: »

If only religious apologists could be honest about this. Ordinary christian forgiveness is not enough to say you don't judge people who have an abortion when the church adopts a public position on the issue.

What's "ordinary Christian forgiveness"? Do you even know what forgiveness means to a Christian?

"The church"? What church? Simply put all Christianity from the Biblical point of view tells me is that all human life is valued by God. It also tells me that every single person will fail to reach God's standards and will fall into sin (Romans 3:23). That includes me. Thankfully God in His loving mercy sent His Son Jesus to stand in my place on the cross so I could be forgiven (John 3:16-18). If I've been forgiven, I need to evaluate how I view others. Jesus in the Bible tells us specifically not to judge on this:

Matthew 7:1-5 wrote:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

I don't feel any need to report you as I don't find it offensive or insulting. I can't see why you would jump to that conclusion.

OK, that's your volition. I'm going to post and reply as I feel fit.

Leftist wrote: »

btw many people 'believed' in mein kampf. Obviously the tones are different but they're both belief compasses. You are told what to believe by a book completely littered with falseties.

This is a new-atheist claim. By the by, you know absolutely nothing about me or how I became a Christian if you genuinely believe that I just blindly accepted everything on a first glance

By the by, the comparison between Mein Kampf and the Bible is slim to none.

Leftist wrote: »

Either way... I don't mind, your perogative as long as you and the other believers do not use this belief when making decisions for everyone... like this republican running for senate election. A radical fundamentalist calling rape as god's will and he wants to be the representitive of the people. That is frightening.

I believe in the Gospel, and it shapes decisions in my every day life. I trust God and I believe that He knows what is best, I walk in what He has said, because I genuinely believe there is sound reason to believe in what I do.

eviltwin

philologos wrote: »

Why shouldn't we consider both mother and child in this? Rather than just one? That's what my position aims to do. Consideration of both mother and child makes this issue a lot more difficult I think rather than just considering the rights of the mother.

Because simply you can't.

If a woman wants an abortion who "wins"....does her right to make a choice that is right for her overrule the baby's right to life? Does an embryo have more rights than a woman?

You can't find a solution that suits both, sooner or later one has to concede. Assuming that the woman has thought it through and looked at her other options and made a decision to choose abortion based on what she feels is best for her then why wouldn't you respect that? You don't have to agree with it, you don't have to support it but you shouldn't be allowed to prevent it.

After all her decision makes no odds to you really, it won't have any direct impact on your life, it will on hers and I don't see much in the way of support for women who are having babies they don't really want.

Sarky

Those are the same "sound reasons" nozzie tore apart ages ago Phil, aren't they? You never did come up with a counter to anything he said, instead making excuses about him being rude. Did Jesus say it was ok to ignore difficult questions?

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

This is a new-atheist claim. By the by, you know absolutely nothing about me or how I became a Christian if you genuinely believe that I just blindly accepted everything on a first glance

I'm not atheist but who cares. I don't know you but I was raised in that false religion and I know the rules. Unless you are suggesting you pick and choose what to follow from the big book.

philologos wrote: »

I believe in the Gospel, and it shapes decisions in my every day life. I trust God and I believe that He knows what is best, I walk in what He has said,

He hasn't said anything. Not in words and certainly not in a book written long after the death of a man claiming to be his son. Religion is a crutch and you know this.

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

I'm not atheist but who cares. I don't know you but I was raised in that false religion and I know the rules. Unless you are suggesting you pick and choose what to follow from the big book.

He hasn't said anything. Not in words and certainly not in a book written long after the death of a man claiming to be his son. Religion is a crutch and you know this.

These just sound like assumptions. But in short, no I don't know this

Christianity is about what is true, not about what is comfy. If it was about what was comfy, I probably wouldn't choose to be a Christian because it's genuinely rather difficult in the face of opposition to say that you believe and trust in Jesus on a daily basis. The main area where I would agree with the new-atheists on is that something is true. Not everything can be true, and certainly claims that logically conflict can't both be true. A and NOT A can't both be true.

But if you are going to make assumptions about me, perhaps you should care.

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

Christianity is about what is true, not about what is comfy.

Completely the opposite way around, you choose to believe in something that has absolutely no proof and in doing so, it gives you a meaning to life. Without it is the cold dark reality.

philologos wrote: »

If it was about what was comfy, I probably wouldn't choose to be a Christian because it's genuinely rather difficult in the face of opposition to say that you believe and trust in Jesus on a daily basis.

If you are irish you can't possibly be serious with this comment.

philologos wrote: »

The main area where I would agree with the new-atheists on is that something is true. Not everything can be true, and certainly claims that logically conflict can't both be true. A and NOT A can't both be true.

I'm sorry I don't understand. Can you explain?

Brain Stroking

smash wrote: »

Allegedly on the cross

Oh i could stretch to believing a man was crucified. The whole appearing a couple of days later mullarkey, not so much

Brain Stroking

What about Allah in all this? Is he just a made-uppy God? What is his will when people are about to get raped?

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

Completely the opposite way around, you choose to believe in something that has absolutely no proof and in doing so, it gives you a meaning to life. Without it is the cold dark reality.

In all due respect, I think it's nonsense, as is the assumption that Christianity is without evidence. I don't think we're going to agree any time soon.

Leftist wrote: »

If you are irish you can't possibly be serious with this comment.

There's very little "comfy" about Christianity irrespective of my ethnicity.

Leftist wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand. Can you explain?

Something is true, and something is real. Irrespective of what you, or I might believe. I don't believe in things because they are comfy, I believe in things only if I have sound reason to. Actually, by nature I'm quite skeptical believe it or not, I just happen to extend my skepticism to new-atheism.

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

In all due respect, I think it's nonsense, as is the assumption that Christianity is without evidence. I don't think we're going to agree any time soon.



There's very little "comfy" about Christianity irrespective of my ethnicity.



Something is true, and something is real. Irrespective of what you, or I might believe. I don't believe in things because they are comfy, I believe in things only if I have sound reason to. Actually, by nature I'm quite skeptical believe it or not, I just happen to extend my skepticism to new-atheism.

that's a bit vague.

Are you saying jesus being the son of God is true irrespective of belief?

btw what evidence backs the christian story?

folan

Leftist wrote: »

btw what evidence backs the christian story?

just to point out, in their sig, they have a link to why they trust the bible. thats probably a clue

robindch

philologos wrote: »

[...] Christianity is without evidence[...]

All the evidence that christianity is true is written in a book. That also applies to Harry Potter.

ejmaztec

robindch wrote: »

All the evidence that christianity is true is written in a book. That also applies to Harry Potter.

Pssst

Are you having trouble with your satnav?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=526

robindch

ejmaztec wrote: »

Are you having trouble with your satnav?

Nah, my satnav's fine. And mah baloney-detector.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

These just sound like assumptions. But in short, no I don't know this

Christianity is about what is allegedly true, not about what is comfy. If it was about what was comfy, I probably wouldn't choose to be a Christian because it's genuinely rather difficult in the face of opposition to say that you believe and trust in Jesus on a daily basis. The main area where I would agree with the new-atheists on is that something is true. Not everything can be true, and certainly claims that logically conflict can't both be true. A and NOT A can't both be true.

fyp

krudler

robindch wrote: »

All the evidence that christianity is true is written in a book. That also applies to Harry Potter.

the bible is true because it says its true, marvelous.

Eutow

philologos wrote: »

In all due respect, I think it's nonsense, as is the assumption that Christianity is without evidence. I don't think we're going to agree any time soon.



There's very little "comfy" about Christianity irrespective of my ethnicity.



Something is true, and something is real. Irrespective of what you, or I might believe. I don't believe in things because they are comfy, I believe in things only if I have sound reason to. Actually, by nature I'm quite skeptical believe it or not, I just happen to extend my skepticism to new-atheism.

Where is the sound reason to believe in God? The Bible is not a sound reason to believe. How do you know that it wasn't written by some bored person who when not out hunting for food or shagging cavewomen decided to utilise his great imagination to use for bartaring for some new stone axes, hammers etc he had his eye on.

Bertser

philologos, can you enlighten me on what you mean by new-atheism?

squod

Eutow wrote: »

How do you know that it wasn't written by some bored person who when not out hunting for food or shagging cavewomen .........

Some copy-pasta

Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years, A.D. 18-36. He most likely gained the position by marrying the daughter of Annas, head of a powerful high-priestly clan (John 18:13). Caiaphas is infamous as the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus.

After He was arrested, Jesus was taken to Caiaphas' house and detained overnight. The guards mocked and beat Him (Luke 22:63-65). In the morning He was interrogated and further beaten. Caiaphas asked Him, "Are you the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," Jesus replied (Mark 14:61-62). Caiaphas then handed Jesus over to Pilate to be tried.

The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

Eutow

squod wrote: »

Some copy-pasta

squod wrote: »

Caiaphas was high priest for 18 years, A.D. 18-36. He most likely gained the position by marrying the daughter of Annas, head of a powerful high-priestly clan (John 18:13). Caiaphas is infamous as the leader of the conspiracy to crucify Jesus.

After He was arrested, Jesus was taken to Caiaphas' house and detained overnight. The guards mocked and beat Him (Luke 22:63-65). In the morning He was interrogated and further beaten. Caiaphas asked Him, "Are you the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," Jesus replied (Mark 14:61-62). Caiaphas then handed Jesus over to Pilate to be tried.

The Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a road in a park just south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. The most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed with the name "Joseph son of (or, of the family of) Caiaphas." That was the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, as documented by Josephus (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3). Inside were the remains of a 60-year-old male, almost certainly those of the Caiaphas of the New Testament. This remarkable discovery has, for the first time, provided us with the physical remains of an individual named in the Bible.

The first true crime novelist.

Ghost Buster

Bertser wrote: »

philologos, can you enlighten me on what you mean by new-atheism?

The ones they are not allowed to burn or stone or imprison any longer:P

philologos

Eutow wrote: »

Where is the sound reason to believe in God? The Bible is not a sound reason to believe. How do you know that it wasn't written by some bored person who when not out hunting for food or shagging cavewomen decided to utilise his great imagination to use for bartaring for some new stone axes, hammers etc he had his eye on.

Eutow wrote: »

The first true crime novelist.

Except the case that the Bible was written as fiction is a real stretch. There is no good reason textually to suggest that the New Testament was fiction. See my why trust the Bible links in my signature URL=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79064805&postcount=115]1[/URL URL=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79064805&postcount=110]2[/URL. Moreover the New Testament is one of the most authentic texts that exist in the ancient world. The idea that the New Testament was either fiction, or Chinese whispers can be very easily disputed.
Those links touch on some of the other reasons why I believe in the New Testament accounts namely that the New Testament doesn't read as a cultic work. If you were going into the Middle East to set up a church, why would you praise Jesus (who you guys claim was long dead) rather than themselves? Moreover why would you include embarrassing details about yourself and others in the Gospel texts? Indeed, why would you constantly challenge people to look at the evidence, for example mentioning specific places and events when the eyewitnesses themselves were alive. That is if you don't want people to check it out for themselves. The very fact that we have eyewitness testimony from the time itself is what is most impressive to me, and the very fact that given the claims that are made in the New Testament that we don't have a systematic rebuttal about these events made in the first century even when the eyewitnesses were still alive is staggering to say the least.

The Resurrection account is another of the reasons why I believe in the Gospel. This is a part of a post that I wrote in 2009 explaining my faith, and I've still not received a reasonable answer from atheists about this. Most fob it off and compare it to unrelated events for example Joseph Smith (who was killed during a gunfight from his window) or Sai Baba. However, none have disputed it on the actual events and information we know about Jesus from the New Testament:

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.

If you can disprove the Resurrection ever took place then my faith is worthless (1 Corinthians 15:14). Nobody has managed to do this to date though.

Not only this the Bible as a whole correlates quite strongly with historical events of the time with there being both plenty of archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of places at the time of Jesus, and before. Figures that are mentioned in the Old Testament such as Hezekiah, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Sennacherib. Events such as the battle of Lachish which took place in 2 Chronicles 32:9 which the Assyrians won. This very battle is mentioned in an artifact in the British Museum in London. Quite recently, I was at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. I noted that there were quite strong correlations between the artefacts of the pagan gods that existed in Caanan and the ones that the Bible strongly discouraged their worship. The history of the ancient Israelite kingdom is more and more manifest in valid historical and archaeological evidence.
Continuing on the strain of historical evidence, we have numerous accounts from Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, and others that confirm the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross. We have plenty of others that detail the early beliefs and practice of Christians for those who claim it was all Chinese whispers.

Old Testament prophesy was another reason that strongly convinced me. In the Old Testament 600 years prior to Jesus and earlier we have criteria concerning what the Messiah would be like. Jesus fulfilled all 300 of these. For example being put to death, and being pierced for the sins of the world, riding a donkey into Jerusalem, being born in Bethlehem, ministering to the Gentiles, living in Galilee, healing the sick and the blind, being buried in a rich man's tomb, rising again on the third day and so on. There are literally hundreds of these which are fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. There are those who claim that the authors of the New Testament could have simply just made up a lot of stuff to line up with it, however if you look at the "Why trust the Bible?" links, you'll see that it is doubtful given the amount of time we have from hearing the Gospel from a convert to Christianity (Paul) and the actual crucifixion.

Another reason that strikes me to this day is that people work on an objective rather than a subjective framework of ethical behaviour. The reality is that even if people claim to have a subjective moral framework. The reality is that when we are wronged, we don't claim that we've been subjectively wrong, but we claim that it is clear to anyone else that we have been wronged and we appeal saying "you should know better". However, if there is no objective standard between us why should the other know better? Why should we just say that it could be right for them. One of the inconsistencies I keep encountering with atheism is that it holds to objective truth in comparison to truth (although it is beggars belief to understand how atheists claim that objective truth can be perceived by the regularly faulty senses) without holding objectivity in respect to moral claims, which in and of themselves are truth claims. Something is right, or something is wrong. It isn't similar to claiming that I love peanut butter.

The Bible gives a far better explanation of human nature. Rather than trying to explain that we are all "essentially good" it faces up to the idea that all have done what is wrong, and that there will be consequences for our behaviour unless we repent and turn our lives around. Atheism even like some of the other world religions ignores that we are guilty of wrongdoing and as a system prefers to simply ignore how we've messed up in the past while making it right. Christianity gives a far better reason to wrongdoing in this creation, and suffering in this creation than atheism will ever give. Moreover Christianity in pointing to an event that happens on the cross can empathise better with the sufferer considering we can look to what Jesus suffered on the cross. Moreover, Christianity gives better hope than any other philosophy can that suffering can be overcome by Jesus' resurrection 3 days later. The reason I can seriously believe in eternal life, is because I can trust in the Resurrection.

Finally and most importantly. I've been most convinced by seeing the impact of the Gospel on myself since I repented and put my trust in Jesus as my Lord and Saviour over 5 years ago, and seeing the profound change in others who have accepted the Gospel. It is because I can see it for myself that I can believe. Yes, there is an abundance of evidence for the Gospel and its claims, but it is because I can see that it truly is real that I believe first and foremost. To be honest with you, when I prayed to God when I was 17 I honestly never believed that He would answer my prayer, yet He surprised me and did. Perhaps if you actually seek for Jesus you might just find Him, rather than looking for any reason not to:

Jeremiah 29:13 wrote:

You will seek me and find me, when you seek me awith all your heart.

Oh and by new-atheism I mean the form of atheist argumentation that emerged following Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (which I found deeply unconvincing as an agnostic!) in 2006.

There are more reasons I could offer but these are some.

hooradiation

philologos wrote: »

It sounds like if I just became an atheist that this discussion would become so much easier. The reality is I believe in a holy and righteous God who will judge the world one day.

Well, I'm judging it right fucking now.
Making me much better that that lazy, feckless, layabout 'god' of yours.

Therefore you should worship me.
Get to it, for I am quick to anger..... and that's about it.

9959

Philologos,
I'm not being smart-arsed or disrespectful, but I honestly believe that some of your posts are excessively long.
Although I'm an atheist, I am interested in what 'people of religion' have to say. If you're genuinely interested in communicating your message, please make an effort to be more concise.

By the way, on the 'new atheism' I think readers might be interested in this:
Lois Lee 'The Guardian' 19th September 2012

"so is the 'new' in 'new atheism' simply inaccurate? Or worse: Is the notion of a new atheism an attempt to patronise today's atheists- to dismiss a forceful cultural phenomenon as fleeting, a brief mania being peddled by a small set of zealots?...........it may be being applied 'falsely', but it is being applied to some end....."

Sorry for the long post.

Ush1

9959 wrote: »

Philologos,
I'm not being smart-arsed or disrespectful, but I honestly believe that some of your posts are excessively long.
Although I'm an atheist, I am interested in what 'people of religion' have to say. If you're genuinely interested in communicating your message, please make an effort to be more concise.

Religion and the religious thrive on not being concise, in creating grey areas. They are like a slippery eel trying to be pinned down.

9959 wrote: »

By the way, on the 'new atheism' I think readers might be interested in this:
Lois Lee 'The Guardian' 19th September 2012

"so is the 'new' in 'new atheism' simply inaccurate? Or worse: Is the notion of a new atheism an attempt to patronise today's atheists- to dismiss a forceful cultural phenomenon as fleeting, a brief mania being peddled by a small set of zealots?...........it may be being applied 'falsely', but it is being applied to some end....."

Sorry for the long post.

Excellent point and I totally agree.

Leftist

philologos wrote: »

If you can disprove the Resurrection ever took place then my faith is worthless (1 Corinthians 15:14). Nobody has managed to do this to date though.

seriously? it's written in abook that a man rose from the dead and you want proof it didn't happen before you consider it might not be true?

seriously?

philologos wrote: »

Not only this the Bible as a whole correlates quite strongly with historical events of the time with there being both plenty of archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of places at the time of Jesus, and before. Figures that are mentioned in the Old Testament such as Hezekiah, or Nebuchadnezzar, or Sennacherib. Events such as the battle of Lachish which took place in 2 Chronicles 32:9 which the Assyrians won.

Absolutely none of this has any proof in any single way whatsoever that jesus was the son of god. I have no doubt that the man existed, you beleive he was the son of god. With zero proof.

Ush1

Rose from the dead, take your pick! Walked on water, transubstantiation, loaves and fish, virgin birth etc etc.....

Even if you think the bible is a reliable source, how can you believe these particular claims simply because they are written down?

philologos

Leftist wrote: »

seriously? it's written in abook that a man rose from the dead and you want proof it didn't happen before you consider it might not be true?

seriously?

If you actually had read my post you'd see that I've explained the context behind asking that question.

Leftist wrote: »

Absolutely none of this has any proof in any single way whatsoever that jesus was the son of god. I have no doubt that the man existed, you beleive he was the son of god. With zero proof.

It does have to do with the reliability of the Bible, and the Bible referring to truth. The more I find the Bible to be reliable in terms of history, archaeology and in respect to the claims about Jesus and God the more and more seriously I can take it.

You don't seem to have even read my post properly

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

If you actually had read my post you'd see that I've explained the context behind asking that question.



It does have to do with the reliability of the Bible, and the Bible referring to truth. The more I find the Bible to be reliable in terms of history, archaeology and in respect to the claims about Jesus and God the more and more seriously I can take it.

You don't seem to have even read my post properly

So if an excellent world reknowned historian and esteemed archealogist in the current day told you that his daughter concieved without any sperm involved, would you believe him?

krudler

philologos wrote: »

If you actually had read my post you'd see that I've explained the context behind asking that question.



It does have to do with the reliability of the Bible, and the Bible referring to truth. The more I find the Bible to be reliable in terms of history, archaeology and in respect to the claims about Jesus and God the more and more seriously I can take it.

You don't seem to have even read my post properly

there are real life places in Harry Potter, archaeology will show these places existed in 2000 years time, ergo Harry Potter must be true?

philologos

krudler wrote: »

there are real life places in Harry Potter, archaeology will show these places existed in 2000 years time, ergo Harry Potter must be true?

You could do with reading my post, and the "Why trust the Bible?" links in my signature. There's no evidence textual or otherwise to suggest the Bible was written as fiction. There's actually evidence to the contrary.

I start thinking that the objections that atheists have to Christianity aren't for the most part concerned with evidence, but with preference.