Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
I Believe in God Because.... (II)
-
19-09-2008 3:07pm#1Continuing From Previous Thread.So maybe it would be a good idea to go back to GO, do not collect 200, and start off again on a better footing.
Appologies, If I seemed to be 'back seat modding'. Was trying to encourage people to stay on topic preventing this thread getting too long.a) The OP sets out a lot of 'rules' and that is not acceptable. It is back-seat modding a thread before it even gets going.b) The OP lumps all Christians together as 'creationists', which is either a gratuitous dig or betrays a real lack of knowledge about Christianity in the first place.
Sorry, Fixed Below.
********
Re-Written
********
I've been reading through some of the debates within this forum, but most are too long to catch up on and join in on.
So I'm making a proposal for People who beleive in God, specifically Christians who see the accounts of The Old Testements as being inspirred of God
"I beleive that a Divine being known as God exists, and played a part in engineering the human species. I believe this because......................"
I've changed that around a bit.
Your explanations should try and explain what is it that makes you agree with the above statement.
If anyone presents a credible well thought-out explanation, that stands up to scrutiny, I would consider the possibility of a god.
Creationists / Christians (Apologies for generalisations here) think that God existing makes more sense than there not being a God. I would like to know what thought-processes lead to this conclusion.
I've summarized my personal beleifs and outlined the considerations that lead me to conclude that there is no reason to beleive in god.....
"IN THIS POST"
In the original post I suggested rules that would attempt to limit the threads ability to go off topic, but forget about that
"I beleive that a Divine being known as God exists, and played a part in engineering the human species. I believe this because......................"
When answering it, bear in mind you are explaining it for people who do not believe in God. I'm curious as to why you chose the other conclusion in the debate.
Hopefully This Will Be An Interesting Discussion. And hopefully this doesn't end in spam.
0
Comments
-
Continuing From Previous Thread.
Appologies, If I seemed tol be 'back seat modding'.
Sorry, Fixed Below.
******
I've been reading through some of the debates within this forum, but most are too long to catch up on and join in on.
So I'm making a proposal for People who beleive in God, specifically Christians who see the accounts of The Old Testements as being inspirred of God
"I beleive that a Divine being known as God exists, and played a part in engineering the human species. I believe this because......................"
I've changed that around a bit.
Your explanations should try and explain what is it that makes you agree with the above statement.
If anyone presents a credible well thought-out explanation, that stands up to scrutiny, I would consider the possibility of a god.
Creationists / Christians (Apologies for generalisations here) think that God existing makes more sense than there not being a God. I would like to know what thought-processes lead to this conclusion.
I've summarized my personal beleifs and outlined the considerations that lead me to conclude that there is no reason to beleive in god.....
"IN THIS POST"
In the original post I suggested rules that would attempt to limit the threads ability to go off topic, but forget about that
"I beleive that god, the divine being exists, and has Influenced The Writings Of What we Recognise As The Book Of The Bible. I believe this because......................"
When answering it, bear in mind you are explaining it for people who do not believe in God.
Hopefully This Will Be An Interesting Discussion. And hopefully this doesn't end in spam.
The best place to start is with the resurrection of Christ. If that happened (and it has been discussed at length on this forum many times) then you must take what Jesus says as the authority. If you claimed the things Jesus claimed about Himself and then rose from the dead as you said you would prior to your self-prophesied death, then I think basing my life on what say is a good start. Next thing to do would be to find out what books in the Old Testament that Jesus quoted from. If He quotes from them, and He was who He claimed to be then that sort of puts a stamp of authority on that book. My reason to believe that books in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha are legitimate ultimately find their way to something Jesus said about them or quoted from them. Isaiah for instance, Jonah, Psalms, the Law and so on. You need to start with the resurrection though. Paul said if Christ be not risen then our faith is vain and that we are false witnesses of Christ. If you are not convinced that the resurrection happened as a fact of history then there is no point in going any further. You need to settle that one. But once settled you can then move on. If you can believe that that happened then it "logically" follows that whatever books are linked to Jesus’ sayings can be trusted also, and then where in those books other books are given stamps of approval then you can step to those as well and then as long as any other others do not contradict the main tenet of these books then its it quite acceptable to accept them on their merits unless they can be proven false by another means.
Now can you tell us why do you care?0 -
-
-
The best place to start is with the resurrection of Christ. If that happened (and it has been discussed at length on this forum many times) then you must take what Jesus says as the authority. If you claimed the things Jesus claimed about Himself and then rose from the dead as you said you would prior to your self-prophesied death, then I think basing my life on what say is a good start. Next thing to do would be to find out what books in the Old Testament that Jesus quoted from. If He quotes from them, and He was who He claimed to be then that sort of puts a stamp of authority on that book. My reason to believe that books in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha are legitimate ultimately find their way to something Jesus said about them or quoted from them. Isaiah for instance, Jonah, Psalms, the Law and so on. You need to start with the resurrection though. Paul said if Christ be not risen then our faith is vain and that we are false witnesses of Christ. If you are not convinced that the resurrection happened as a fact of history then there is no point in going any further. You need to settle that one. But once settled you can then move on. If you can believe that that happened then it "logically" follows that whatever books are linked to Jesus’ sayings can be trusted also, and then where in those books other books are given stamps of approval then you can step to those as well and then as long as any other others do not contradict the main tenet of these books then its it quite acceptable to accept them on their merits unless they can be proven false by another means.
I'm not satisfied with this explanation. It is assumptions based on assumptions.
If you research the history of the religions around the time of the Jews, what becomes apparent is that religions evolve and grow, in a similar way to how languages evolved over time.
WRT the first 4 books of the Old Testement, there were books out 3000 years before the Jewish books, that told tales similar to that of genesis.
It would seem that the Story of Noah, Moses, slavery under Egyptions did not actually happen as christians seem to instinctively assume to be true.
The Old Testement is telling stories which were allready recorded 3,000 years before the Old Testement books were written. It is easy to imagine how tales / folkore can evolve over time. The Old Testement, and Jewish Religion evolved from other, older religious beleifs.
And with respect to the gospels, have a look a this video...
__Link__
The story of Jesus Christ according to the gospels, inherited parts of it's story from older legends.
You have to look at the times in retrospect. These were bronz/iron aged peoples. I'm not suggesting the Jews 'ripped off' other religions, I'm saying it evolved from other religions.
Bearing in mind the above point, and several other reasons, I do not see the bible being inspired of god. Rather it is a book written by men when Human Wisdom was nothing compared to Modern Day People.
I will not accept that what the gospels say to be Fact.
The stories of the gospels would have travelled around by word of mouth. This is how knoledge was spread in those days. (No internetz =])
Stories/Tales evolve over. time 0 -
MY advice from I Believe in God Because.... part 1 still stands.
There are people who think the theory of a god existing, makes more sense than the alternative. I'd like to see the reasons people have for believing there is a god.I have to say that I am quite uncomfortable with the whole notion of this thread. Aside from the fact that I'm unsure if you are fully aware of the difference between a Christian and creationist, the whole thread seems to be leaning towards "setting 'em up to knock 'em down", albeit unintended. Maybe I'm being a little sensitive here.
I am an Atheist because I cannot see any explanation that makes sense. Perhaps someone else does have an explanation though.
Faith is believing in something we have no evidence to beleive in.At a guess, I would say that it is highly unlikely a post on this forum will shift you from your position. Religious conviction arises not from reading a bunch of replies on boards, but something deeper than that. To a degree - and I would argue that it's to quite a high degree - you can intellectualise and rationalise God, but that only takes you to a point. Without faith you have nothing.
Assuming is believing in something we have no evidence to beleive in.
I need to Assume that god is real, in order to beleive in him?
I was earlier in my life a believer in God. I know all that.If Christianity has the possibility of being true - and many feel it does - then surely you can spare 20 hours of your life exploring the possibility at both an intellectual and more personal level.I believe that if you are really interested in exploring the possibility of there being a God (and I make no guarantees), laying down the gauntlet at the feet of others isn't the way to go about it.
I'm asking for someone to tell me something new, that I've never considered, which could make me accept the possibility of God existing.
I'm not trying to attack other people's beleifs, I am just stating why I do or don't agree with the explanations they give.
I think this could be interesting 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm not satisfied with this explanation. It is assumptions based on assumptions.
If you research the history of the religions around the time of the Jews, what becomes apparent is that religions evolve and grow, in a similar way to how languages evolved over time.
WRT the first 4 books of the Old Testement, there were books out 3000 years before the Jewish books, that told tales similar to that of genesis.
It would seem that the Story of Noah, Moses, slavery under Egyptions did not actually happen as christians seem to instinctively assume to be true.
The Old Testement is telling stories which were allready recorded 3,000 years before the Old Testement books were written. It is easy to imagine how tales / folkore can evolve over time. The Old Testement, and Jewish Religion evolved from other, older religious beleifs.
And with respect to the gospels, have a look a this video...
__Link__
The story of Jesus Christ according to the gospels, inherited parts of it's story from older legends.
You have to look at the times in retrospect. These were bronz/iron aged peoples. I'm not suggesting the Jews 'ripped off' other religions, I'm saying it evolved from other religions.
Bearing in mind the above point, and several other reasons, I do not see the bible being inspired of god. Rather it is a book written by men when Human Wisdom was nothing compared to Modern Day People.
I will not accept that what the gospels say to be Fact.
The stories of the gospels would have travelled around by word of mouth. This is how knoledge was spread in those days. (No internetz =])
Stories/Tales evolve over. time
Weel, I had hoped that you were honestly asking, but youro pening line stinks of trolling.
If you were to really check history, there is evidence of Hebrew slavery in Egypt as well as their leaving.
Then you go on to change th etopic and slam Chritianity and bring in all th eold and tired arguments of 'others' before.
So are you interested or not?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
BrianCalgary wrote: »And were your historical analysis falls down and your newspaper analogy is as follows:
Historians when checking the authenticity of a claim they look for competeing sides to the event. There are no writings anywhere from the period that dispute the events told in the NT. Also any of the arcaeology that exists supports everything in the NT, especially regarding the books written by Luke, whos was very concerned with detail.
Think of it as a few nespapers, if you were to write an article in a newspaper that wasn't true, the letters to the editor column would be filled with those wishing to correct your error.
Nothing was ever written to correct the gospels as containing error.
I wrote a book. Please tell me if you think it's wrong.
Can't question my book if you don't know anything about it can you? Most peope couldn't read or write so they relied on other more educated people to read/write for them. So just because there isn't writings against the bible from the time doesn't make them true. I'm not questioning if all the bible was true, I don't know. I do know there are other bibles written on the event that the Church owns and doesn't allow examination or publication. Who knows if they could convert the world or be against their religion. We won't know...Soulwinter wrote:True enough but if that one did come true then why would they lie about the other ones? Doesn’t make sense that they’d lie about the other claims if He did actually rise from the grave.
To make people believe in him more... If you believed he was resurrected then you'd be more inclinded to believe he made loads of fish and bread appear or turned water into wine. I'm not argueing this stuff did or didn't happen, but you can't expect others who write about him and who support him, to exaggerate or lie about him...Soulwinter wrote:If these other claims aren't true then I’d say "so what" if He rose?
No. If he was saying he rose, and they found that his body wasn't there, many people will believe its true and take on all his other "miracles" as being miracles. I don't know much the resurrection or the part where he talked to his disciples, so I'd love if someone could fill me in. [I haven't been thought that part since I was in 6th class]BrianCalgary wrote:If He doesn't resurrect He becomes nothing more than another prophet with some outlandish claims.
If He does resurrect then He is God, as He claimed to be.
Then what is your reaction to Him, reject or accept His teachings?
If he doesn't resurrect, but did turn water to wine, make loads of fish and bread appear for everyone, and cure loads of people. I'd accept the principles of his teachings. I'd question whether he was the son of God though... But as you say, he'd be a prophet sent from God.
If he did nothing he said he did in the bible, but resurrected, I'd consider him to have seen the prestige.
Seriously, if he did resurrect, and did nothign else, I'd accept the principles of his teachings. I'd question whether he was the son of God though...
*NOTE*
If he did resurrect, would that not be the second coming of Jesus...0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Advertisement