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
Evolution and a supreme being.
Options
Comments
-
OK, I'm going to go through some of The Corinthian's posts now. Following on from this I plan to give a list of reasons as to why I can believe and trust in the Gospel. I.E - Indicatory evidence that the Gospel is more likely be true than not to be true. It's going to require a good bit of homework, but I'd be more than happy to do this. In fact it is consistent with what the Bible tells me I should do (e.g 1 Peter 3:15-16). That's the next thing I'm going to do on this thread.
I've already on this thread given quite a number of reasons, but it might be useful to have them in one place.
1. The Bible mythology?The Corinthian wrote: »To begin with I was citing the Bible, not God; I have not discussed the existence of God with you whatsoever. Secondly, if the Bible does constitute a false account, then it is in effect a mythology as valid as the mythology that has grown around Santa for children.
I have no problem with you telling me that the Bible is mythology, but if you do, you will have to give firm reason as to why you believe that the Bible is mythology rather than truth. I'm more than happy to engage with that argument, however, there's only so far that I'm willing to go with assumption.
The "if the Bible is a false account" is actually a very big if on the grounds of some of the reasons that I've already given in this thread for why I believe in it's authenticity, veracity, and in the correlation of what it says with reality. I'm hoping to go into this in more depth when I give a revised version of my reasons for believing and trusting in Him (see here for my previous set of reasons, they do need to be improved in some ways but they are a good starting point).The Corinthian wrote: »It makes little sense to base a discussion that questions the validity of the Bible on the Bible. It would be like trying to prove that Lord of the Rings was a true text by simply citing from it and ignoring everything else.
Read through the thread. I gave some reasons for why I believe in the Gospel which are Bible independent already, and there will be some in the post that I'm going to make with the list of reasons why I believe in Christianity.
2. Lumping all religions together, a good idea?The Corinthian wrote: »Because it's too complicated? No, 'lumping' all religions together is a very good idea as it demonstrates commonalities between them.
Not all religions are the same. In fact some couldn't be any more different. I won't be defending all "religion" as a concept. I don't advocate that all "religions" are inherently good. Far from it, just as Jesus argued against other religions (Matthew 23, John 8:39-47). So much so that Jesus pointed out that the religious heirarchy never knew God. It is as true today for many of the established creeds of our day.
One major reason why I believe that Christianity is fundamentally different to other faiths is how it works.
All other creeds I know teach a model where God will love you only by obedience. You have to do works in order to be justified before God.
Biblical Christianity teaches that while we were still sinners, while we rejected God and wanted nothing to do with Him, God loved us (Romans 5). He loved us so much that He rescued us by His Son (John 3:16-18), and that it is by faith in Him alone that we are justified (Ephesians 2:8-10). It is because we love Him, and are thankful for His mercy that we love others (1 John 4), it's not because we need to do this to be saved. Not only has God forgiven us, and saved us, but God promises that He will help us to follow Him (Philippians 1:6).
The idea that it is by grace alone that man is saved is confined to Christianity. I know no other creed that teaches this. It is because of that difference that it is fundamentally different.
3. More historical evidence for Islam than Christianity? Really?The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, being more recent, the Quaran has far more third party historical sources that verify its historical background - there's independent historical evidence of Mohamed even existing, for example, which does not exist for Jesus.
That is clearly not true. There is clear evidence of Jesus' existence and there is historical evidence of his crucifixion. One only need to consult Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Lucretius, and The Babylonian Talmud for a start.
4. The Exodus, never happened?The Corinthian wrote: »I'm not. Just because the Bible is accurate historically in some areas does not wipe away that it is not in others; Nazareth existing does not negate the fact that the Jews were never in Egypt as described in the story of Moses.
That isn't a fact, by the by. It's casual assumption and nothing more.
It would be disingenuous of you to claim that it was a fact. The reason I brought Nazareth into it was because many skeptics assumed that since there was no archaeological evidence concerning it's existence that it never existed. The reality was that it did exist. Just because there isn't any archaeological evidence of the Exodus and at present I'm taking your word on it alone, doesn't mean that it couldn't be discovered in the future.
The very fact of the matter is Israel and Jordan in particular are littered with historical and archaeological evidence concerning Biblical events. The more and more we have, gives me reason to trust that it is a trustworthy document. I will be explaining more about this in my set of reasons.
5. False claims concerning the New TestamentThe Corinthian wrote: »Of course the claims I make are not Biblical. The whole point of this argument is wheither the Bible, or any other 'holy' text is true or a mythology, so naturally I will seek arguments from without to confirm or reject this rather than concentrate on a text that may or may not be valid.
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying to you. In your original post that I responded to, you made claims about the New Testament that were wrong. I corrected you in respect both to you saying that Paul changed Christianity to suit Gentiles, and also in respect to why Jesus told people not to tell anyone about him being the Son of God.
If you post something about the Bible, and it is mistaken, I will open up the Bible and show you where you're mistaken about it. That's fair game and I will do it.The Corinthian wrote: »Indeed. I gave a synopsis of the New Testament. Without resorting to huge slabs of scripture, do you deny the content of that synopsis? Is it not claimed that he said this by only his disciples? Was their ministry not essentially how they all made a living? When he was killed, was evidence the resurrection essentially witnessed by no one by but his disciples and a few events that are recounted only by his disciples? Did this 'new' religion not essentially reconstitute how his disciples could make a living after he was killed?
The synopsis was wrong, about Jesus and about Paul. I pointed this out to you.
You need to take responsibility on this. You said the following:Objectively, the whole Jesus story (presuming some shred of historical validity) reads as bizarre as Scientology's 'Incident II' story; a rabbi and his followers go around Judea freeloading as they go along, from what I can make out, until the rabbi gets into trouble with the local authorities and gets nailed to a tree. Just before this he tells his followers that he's "the son of God, but don't tell anyone" (yeah, right), then his body 'vanishes' and he rises from the dead and where he is only seen by said followers and maybe some other unrecorded (apart from their account) event. Then the followers able to go back to a life of carrying the Word of God and freeloading - talk about saving the firm
The New Testament presents a different picture in respect to the living of the Apostles than your post does. As an example, I reckon we could look at 2 Corinthians 11. It's valid to go through the Bible when you've made false claims about the New Testament and I'm going to correct some of them.2 Corinthians 11:16-33 wrote:I repeat, let no one think me foolish. But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not as the Lord would but as a fool. Since many boast according to the flesh, I too will boast. For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! For you bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!
But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant?
If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.
Does that sound like a freeloader, or does that sound like a man who risked his life to proclaim Jesus as so many others both alongside him and afterwards did?
Even for those who are in ministry, receiving enough to live on from the congregation isn't freeloading if one is working to further the Gospel. I'd be more than happy support ministry in that way, particularly when I see how hard the ministry team work at my church both in communicating Gospel truths in the church, but in how zealous they are for proclaiming the Gospel outside of the church and helping people like me to do so.The Corinthian wrote: »You may accuse me of presenting a cynical interpretation of the story, but factually, the above is all correct.
No it isn't, and I've shown you that you dishonestly quoted the New Testament. Please do the right thing and accept that you're wrong on this.The Corinthian wrote: »It is very clearly claimed. If I had made the whole thing up and wanted to introduce information after the fact like that, I would probably need to come up with a reason as to why I had previously withheld it too.
The New Testament manuscripts are the closest thing we have to Jesus' words and indeed they are more probable to be Jesus' words than anything else in existence. In your synopsis you refer to the New Testament and you post things which are wrong about the text, therefore I'm more than welcome to correct you. I think it's important lest people believe mistruths about the Gospel.The Corinthian wrote: »I never said that both Jews and non-Jews were not welcome (or targeted) by Christianity. I said that the early Church was split in how much it should conform to Jewish traditions and practices, that those Jews and non-Jews would have to adhere to if they converted.
The Apostles weren't split on this subject, and based on Jesus teaching there is little doubt over the subject.
As for whether or not Judaisers came into the church in Galatia and taught a false Gospel, that's something else entirely. Indeed, John had to deal with Gnostics undermining the Gospel.
6. How can Paul's authorship of Galatians and other early Christian texts give credence to an early codification of the Gospel?The Corinthian wrote: »That's very questionable. The gospels were written decades after his death, allegedly by individuals who, for the most part, never even met him. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on that particular topic, which is frankly a mammoth debate in itself.
That's not entirely true. Luke writes his account on eyewitness testimony. We have historical evidence from Iraneus in respect to John authoring John's Gospel. We also know that Mark was a disciple of Peter, and of course Matthew / Levi was one of the twelve.
If you see what I've argued concerning Galatians and the historicity of Paul and his conversion to Christianity it becomes rather difficult to argue that the Gospels are forgery considering that:
1) Paul was a convert to Christianity and received the Gospel from others,
2) His timeline leaves us (54 - (17 + years between the events he describes and Galatians being written). Subtracting that time from the commonly accepted date for the authorship of Galatians leaves us with very little time for a Gospel to be concocted.
3) Galatians and other writings of Paul including 1 Corinthians affirm the Gospel.
4) Therefore we must conclude that central teachings of the Gospel were established long before Paul was converted, and soon after Jesus returned to the Father.
I'd agree with you, were it not for relatively recent writings of Paul and what we know of his conversion, and that he wrote as a convert the time gap would be more challenging.The Corinthian wrote: »Why does it give a strong reason as to why the Gospel is not likely to be a fiction? Forgery, sure, it could well be an original (or pretty original) text. But even original texts can be full of fiction.
See above. It makes it difficult because clearly the Gospel was codified long before it was written in the Christian church. We have the testimony of Paul to confirm this and we have a very very narrow window by which it could have been concocted.
Even if it was concocted, we still have the huge question given what the disciples faced
(and it clearly wasn't freeloading).The Corinthian wrote: »This is why this discussion is really pointless. You presume that the text is true as your starting point and thus see it perfectly rational to use it as a source of proof in your arguments.
Actually, you presume that it is false without even considering the details. It's not rational to consider something false and not consider the clear reasoning that there is for accepting the New Testament to be true.
It's entirely reasonable to say that because we a text written by Paul in 54AD to back up central claims of the Gospel that the Christian community believed in that from a very very early point in Christianity. The reality is that there is very little room for suggesting that Christianity was concocted over time.
The main reason why I'm posting on this thread simply put. A Christian view is not heard properly on these type of threads. It tends to be the new-atheists arguing. I feel it's my responsibility to put people straight on Gospel misconceptions.
7. More claims of it being fiction, and miracles.The Corinthian wrote: »I instead see the text as largely fictional; set in a real historical context, but embellished with magical tales that cannot be verified. Possibly the most glaring of these is Herod's massacre of the innocents, because despite the scale of the event, it is not recorded anywhere; by local government records, contemporary or even later historians.
Pretty sure, yes. The whole area of St Paul's influence on Christianity, his relationship with St James and the question of Jewish law and tradition is a particular hot topic in both archaeological and theological debates.
On Herod and the massacre of the infants. I need to do some research in respect to that.
You can see my POV on miracles in my last response to Pushtrak.
Also on Paul and James I'd need more clarification as to what you're referring to. If it is on the faith & works issue, I don't think Paul or James are contradictory on that issue. Am more than happy to explain why if you let me know if that is what you were talking about.
8. Did Paul change Christianity? (see above and previous posts for more)The Corinthian wrote: »There does exist significant evidence that points to St Paul having actively distorted the course and beliefs of early Christianity to a form more attractive to non-Jews.
No there isn't. I've shown you rather clearly that the Gospel clearly shows a mission to the Gentiles from the get go. Jesus clearly proclaimed to Gentiles, and so did the other apostles. It is clearly wrong to say that Paul changed Christianity.
9. Is Deism any more reasonable than Christianity?The Corinthian wrote: »Bit of a presumption there. A Primum Movens does not have to do anything other than get the ball rolling. to presume he does, and that he would bother with the likes of us in the process, is really little more than vanity.
I don't see why it is a convincing argument that God wouldn't get involved in Creation. I need to ask you why is deism any more convincing than a God who actually cares about His Creation?
It's a presumption that has been made by many atheists and skeptics without giving valid reason for why they believe that to be more likely. If we're going to presume that it is more likely that God is deistic, we need to get our teeth into some the reasons why that presumption is held.The Corinthian wrote: »But even that is not relevant to what we're discussing, because you are now citing the existence of God in relation to your belief in the Bible. Why not a belief in the Quaran?
Simply put, I believe in the Bible, because I can clearly point to many things within it being true in reality. (I'll explain more in depth when I post my revised reasons).
In respect to other texts, I don't see this. I was discussing with some Muslims doing dawah today about why I disagree with the Qur'an, it was a fruitful discussion, we went through some passages, and I explained the crux of my objection to the Qur'an. I thanked then and we went our separate ways. I'm more than happy to discuss these objections on the Islam forum. I'm not happy to discuss Islam without Muslims being present. It's a generic rule that I have when I'm discussing other faiths. I'm not going to argue against Islam with someone who is not a Muslim.
For this post, I'm largely discussing why I am not an atheist, as I'm discussing with skeptics and atheists for the most part.
10. On the danger of atheism.The Corinthian wrote: »I would note, with some amusement, that an Atheist would likely say something similar of religion. And I say religion because Christianity really is no more special than any other revealed religion.
In your opinion it is not more special. You've not given any sound reason for why you think that yet. I've given you quite a few logical reasons as to why I can trust the New Testament and I'm going to be giving you more reasons as a whole as to why I trust in the Gospel of Jesus.
11. Conversions to other faiths?The Corinthian wrote: »And those agnostics who convert to Buddhism or Islam? Are they examples of how Buddha or Allah saved them?
Considering that I don't believe in any God other than the God who has revealed Himself through the Bible, what do you think?
12. The Bible doesn't include the Jewish Biblical text?
You'll need to explain why you think that because I'm not going to take your word for it. It's not useful to claim that without giving a good reason as to why you think that.The Corinthian wrote: »Not true. The Bible omits quite a bit of the Jewish Biblical text.
13. Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's floodThe Corinthian wrote: »A Sumerian religious text. It's where the story of the great flood originates, later to be borrowed and amended by Judaism. Just another mythology.
I know that much. The Epic of Gilgamesh gives credence that there was a flood in that region at that time, I don't see how it undermines the Genesis 6 - 8 passage. Unless you want to explain that to me.
14. Am I assuming that the New Testament is true?The Corinthian wrote: »If you can cite any reasons that do not presume the validity of the New Testament as a starting point, then fire ahead.
I haven't presumed the validity of the New Testament in respect to my argument from Galatians. What I have done is look to the date of Galatians and see that it talks about many of the teachings that you claim were added, well before they were written. That's logic, if Paul writes about these things well before they were codified in the Gospels, and if he was a convert, then it is clear that Paul received this testimony from someone else.
I haven't presumed the validity of the New Testament in respect to the argument from the resurrection. All I've done in that case is look to the events that happened prior to the crucifixion and the events that happened after the crucifixion and have pointed to the X event that happened inbetween.
I also haven't presumed the validity of the New Testament in respect to looking at how it was written. I've said that how it was written demonstrates that it is not likely to have been a fiction.
Also there are other arguments in this thread which don't depend on even citing the New Testament.
That isn't a valid criticism of my posts.The Corinthian wrote: »You see, when I say 'preach to the converted' I mean stop presuming that the New Testament is true when arguing, because your argument will be automatically rejected on the basis that I do not share that presumption.
See above I haven't done so. Looking to the New Testament, investigating it, and seeing if it holds up, historically, logically, or in respect to what claims it makes is not assuming its truth.The Corinthian wrote: »As I said earlier, I'm not terribly interested in converting you to my view and am certainly disinterested in being converted and all that we're doing now is going around in those circles I predicted. Would you like to leave it at that?
I mainly posted to you because you were posting untruths about Christianity. If you hadn't I wouldn't have responded to your original post.
15. Denominations, can they all be true? (Pushtrak: I'm going to deal with the same claims that you've made on this point, I need to hit two birds with one stone on some issues).The Corinthian wrote: »Seeing as you haven't, I'll address the first point you made to Pushtrak.
I found your response fascinating, mainly because you never actually answer the question. You talk at length about your experience, how you believe that denominational differences are largely in practice and style, with a minority being theological and finally just end by saying you believe in the Gospels.
Pushtrak is posting about his experience. I'm posting about mine. I think that if there were huge denominational differences I would have noticed it in the last 5 years as I've been studying the Bible with all denominations. My point in that section was to show that what differences that do exist are minor.The Corinthian wrote: »But 'how can all denominations be true?' You never actually get to that.
You admit theological differences exist, never actually address the question of how such conflicting theological differences can be reconciled as 'true'.
The simple answer is they can't all be true. There is one God, and there is truth concerning Him and there is falsehood. There are two types of truth concerning God from a Christian perspective. Firstly there is truth that we know from His nature (that is natural theology), then there is what He has revealed to us Biblically. It is through investigating what He has said Biblically that we can establish as to what is true about Him.
Focusing only on natural theology, or theology in the absence of the Bible will naturally lead to confusion. For the most part it will give a vague idea of the transcendent without clear substance. It is when we start to get into the work of putting the meat on the bones Biblically that it becomes clearer. Hence why there are only small differences in denominational thinking. That is largely as a result of us being human and in some cases reading things which aren't warranted. That's why we need to be open to someone walking through step by step with us where we might be mistaken.
In so far as God exists though, there is only one truth about Him. Therefore there can't be a multiplicity of contradictory things being true about Him.The Corinthian wrote: »I find this quite frustrating, as this style of of discussion gets nowhere. You respond, but don't answer. Or you prove your points by using the Bible as your sole source of evidence, even though it makes absolutely no sense to do so if we have not established first that it is a valid one. Or you indulge in a circular discussion whereby God proves the Bible, which in turn proves God.
You claim that I've done something I actually haven't done. See point 14 in respect to your claim that my reasoning is circular.The Corinthian wrote: »You must accept that we're not stupid. We can see when we're being pulled over the table, as it were, and are unlikely to thank you for it.
I'm genuinely interested in responding to your posts. I wouldn't have spent as much time or effort on this if I wasn't.0 -
philologos wrote: »I think this is a really excellent question.
The world is still for the most part in darkness, in so far as people are under the burden of their sin and haven't repented and accepted Jesus as their Saviour. In so far as there is rejection of the Gospel, there is darkness.
As for what exact quote you looked at I don't know. I use PHP to randomly rotate between about 20 images. I suspect it was in Colossians:
Thank you
Their sin? The poor babies original sin or actual committed sin? What is a sin? Does it change or is it set in stone (huh huh, Moses reference)
PHP, kudos
As for the rest, "jesus loves me so, cos the bible tells me so" and is all very circular.
You skipped my main point perhaps I was too subtle? What happens to all the people who never got a chance to believe in Jesus? Hell? Even if you are a young earther there is a lot of people before the ADs and a lot of people who are not christian/catholic since. The light, as you say, took a long time to come on fully and even then has not overpowered the darkness. Seems unlikely if this was coming an omnipotent being, no?
We are they all sinners? Why is there are mention of only (?) 2 sinning cities then?0 -
I'd imagine the answer you'll get will be that those of other faiths or of no faith will go to eternal damnation. Which is a boggling thing to think about in terms of population. This is from 2000. I didn't look for long... Essentially I stopped when I found that one. Going by that, 1/3 of the population is christian. Which means 2/3 of the planet are going to hell if they are right. Now, with a view of reality, we have been on the planet* for 100,000 years. That isn't an insubstantial amount of people.conor.hogan.2 wrote: »You skipped my main point perhaps I was too subtle? What happens to all the people who never got a chance to believe in Jesus? Hell? Even if you are a young earther there is a lot of people before the ADs and a lot of people who are not christian/catholic.
Edit: *As homo sapiens just to clarify.0 -
I know.
Both what happened before Jesus and all the patriarchs (imagine the definitely existed for a second) and what happens to all those who "never heard the words that jesus said" both because they were not alive, or have a different faith or no faith have always just set me at ease with religion.
Those 2 points along make me super skeptical of religion, I ignored them for too long. They make no sense, no matter how you word any possible answer.
We have been on earth a lot longer. Yes modern humans have only been around 200,000 years (homo sapiens (sapiens?) anatomically modern humans anyway...) so surely they if not older "humans" (ancestors really) were created by God if he did in fact create us?
(200-150 thousand years, but yeah not to squabble over dates)
So the sheer numbers of out and out going to hell is mind boggling.0 -
I'd imagine the answer you'll get will be that those of other faiths or of no faith will go to eternal damnation. Which is a boggling thing to think about in terms of population. This is from 2000. I didn't look for long... Essentially I stopped when I found that one. Going by that, 1/3 of the population is christian. Which means 2/3 of the planet are going to hell if they are right. Now, with a view of reality, we have been on the planet* for 100,000 years. That isn't an insubstantial amount of people.
Edit: *As homo sapiens just to clarify.
That's shyte! Blah blah, I'm a big atheist who speaks from my religious pirch about neanderthals and homosapiens, follow me.....*pukes*
No Christian claims to know the destiny of a soul hopefully - they only submit it to God who knows all motives.
The child is only responsible insofar as they are given responsibility - after that Christ knows the soul better than they know themselves...There is a 'soul' that small part of humans whether one denies it or no - it seems sometimes like evolution and 'desire' points towards the natural desire for what naturally exists and always existed, but will never be quantified, and never claimed it could either.....
It's total ballsology, to claim that anybody knows how one meets their maker, least of all to claim that everybody 'burns' and that is the message of Christ. It is not.
He reads the heart more properly and fairly than anybody knows, and he only ever promoted love - on that basis, we'll be judged. So pull up yer socks.0 -
Advertisement
-
How dare we refer to homo sapiens!0
-
Join Date:Posts: 30379
I'd imagine the answer you'll get will be that those of other faiths or of no faith will go to eternal damnation. Which is a boggling thing to think about in terms of population. This is from 2000. I didn't look for long... Essentially I stopped when I found that one. Going by that, 1/3 of the population is christian. Which means 2/3 of the planet are going to hell if they are right. Now, with a view of reality, we have been on the planet* for 100,000 years. That isn't an insubstantial amount of people.
Edit: *As homo sapiens just to clarify.
So in the afterlife christians are an ethnic minority it would seem.0 -
Hi thar, welcome back. Haven't seen you since #355. Lots of people responded to your two posts. Nothing to add? Oh.. Ok. Is this going to be another hit and run? Regardless, lets just get to it.That's shyte! Blah blah, I'm a big atheist who speaks from my religious pirch about neanderthals and homosapiens, follow me.....*pukes*
Wow... So much in so little. Ok, lets take this slowly. No christian claims... Er, just go to anywhere you see a lot of christians talking to a lot of non believers or people of no faith... Or indeed in a lot of cases christians discussing with other christians, you will find.... *drum roll* "You are going to hell" type comments.No Christian claims to know the destiny of a soul hopefully - they only submit it to God who knows all motives.
Richard Dawkins hate mail
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/09/will-a-loving-god-condemn-peop.php
Condemnations of hell, fit for a governor
The rest has been rendered obsolete by the theology of the bible and the above.It is a question that came my way recently: will God really condemn good people to hell? And the answer is yes.
...
(2) Hell is certain for all who reject Jesus Christ.
Well, two things. There is no afterlife. But assuming there was an afterlife, it wouldn't be a minority or a majority anything. It would be all of one particular faith. Unless the doctrines of faith were galaxies apart from their intended meanings in their construction.So in the afterlife christians are an ethnic minority it would seem.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30379
Well, two things. There is no afterlife. But assuming there was an afterlife, it wouldn't be a minority or a majority anything. It would be all of one particular faith. Unless the doctrines of faith were galaxies apart from their intended meanings in their construction.
Well damnation is still technically an afterlife of sorts :P Assuming there is one of course, I don't believe there is either just so you know. Its a very strange notion, to believe that this life here and now is something we have to endure before the real thing, some kind of test before you're allowed to live your actual life.0 -
It isn't strange that the concept of the brain ceasing functioning isn't a cause to stop one from thinking there must be more to life after that, sadly. It isn't strange in that it is reality, I mean. Not that it isn't strange in that it is sane.Its a very strange notion, to believe that this life here and now is something we have to endure before the real thing, some kind of test before you're allowed to live your actual life.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi thar, welcome back. Haven't seen you since #355. Lots of people responded to your two posts. Nothing to add? Oh.. Ok. Is this going to be another hit and run? Regardless, lets just get to it.
Wow... So much in so little. Ok, lets take this slowly. No christian claims... Er, just go to anywhere you see a lot of christians talking to a lot of non believers or people of no faith... Or indeed in a lot of cases christians discussing with other christians, you will find.... *drum roll* "You are going to hell" type comments.
Richard Dawkins hate mail
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2009/09/will-a-loving-god-condemn-peop.php
Condemnations of hell, fit for a governor
The rest has been rendered obsolete by the theology of the bible and the above.
Well, two things. There is no afterlife. But assuming there was an afterlife, it wouldn't be a minority or a majority anything. It would be all of one particular faith. Unless the doctrines of faith were galaxies apart from their intended meanings in their construction.
Pmsl, you were waiting with baited breath Pushtrak, you have your 'links' all at the ready, a dedicated atheist, and follower of fashion...?
Sorry, I have a lot of responsibilites and I sometimes just pass through on boards - Mainly in the late hours just before I get some shut eye, I'm a mum with two little ones that don't particularly think boards is the be all and end all of their truth...:)
I will defo look up your problems with my posts and try to answer them to the best of my ability...
...tomorrow. Da da da dum....
I don't spend my life online, but I will promise to read through properly tomorrow, and qualify if I expressed distain with why I expressed it-0 -
Nope, I must be an efficient googler.Pmsl, you were waiting with baited breath Pushtrak, you have your 'links' all at the ready, a dedicated atheist, and follower of fashion...?
No, that is a 2000 year old, bronze age document. We know this.Sorry, I have a lot of responsibilites and I sometimes just pass through on boards - Mainly in the late hours just before I get some shut eye, I'm a mum with two little ones that don't particularly think boards is the be all and end all of their truth...:)
Feel free to use scriptural support as backing for a position that one who doesn't follow Jesus will be able to get in to heaven. This not being available, one must assume that according to christianity one must believe in christ.I will defo look up your problems with my posts and try to answer them to the best of my ability...
Which by extension means those who don't aren't in the club. Which means accordingly, it is an article of faith that 2/3 of the planet will be burning post-mortem. And, as I already pointed out, one should consider just how many people that would mean in terms of people alive today, and those who have been alive for the past 100,000 years approx while we were homo sapien.
Oh, express disdain all you want. But, I like my disdain served with a side of compelling argument....tomorrow. Da da da dum....
I don't spend my life online, but I will promise to read through properly tomorrow, and qualify if I expressed distain with why I expressed it-0 -
Yeah, I'll read through tomorrow properly, but it does sound a little like 'religous' dedication thar from the noble atheist - has me in kinks..
:P0 -
Yes, being an atheist is fashion. Because they are the overwhelming minority….
Are they not? (I would not classify myself as an A/atheist anyway btw)0 -
conor.hogan.2 wrote: »Thank you
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
...........................
We are they all sinners? Why is there are mention of only (?) 2 sinning cities then?
Hey! I don't know why you are bringing Carrick On Suir into it0 -
Mythology is a sacred narrative that typically involve supernatural events and characters, the purpose of which is to teach a religious framework. The Bible, more obviously the Old Testament but also the New, clearly falls into this definition.philologos wrote: »I have no problem with you telling me that the Bible is mythology, but if you do, you will have to give firm reason as to why you believe that the Bible is mythology rather than truth.
I did not suggest that all religions are the same, so we can dismiss that straw man. I pointed out that all religions based upon revealed narratives share similarities with regard to how that narrative is promoted or 'proved'. For example, all the sacred narratives of the religions I cited satisfy the above definition of mythology.Not all religions are the same. In fact some couldn't be any more different. I won't be defending all "religion" as a concept.
Naturally, they all differ too - each with slightly or sometimes significantly different 'messages' - but that does not change the fact that they all are more similar than you would care to admit.
Actually, you're incorrect. To begin with some of the accounts you cite did not discuss Jesus, but his followers (e.g. Tacitus) and none of the others are even close to contemporary to him - and some are even disputed as being written by the authors (e.g. Josephus).That is clearly not true. There is clear evidence of Jesus' existence and there is historical evidence of his crucifixion. One only need to consult Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Lucretius, and The Babylonian Talmud for a start.
Which is all irrelevant, because I never disputed that there is no evidence or even that a historical Jesus didn't exist. Only that being more recent, evidence of a historical Mohammed is better.
Which is a nonsensical argument; if we are to accept as true anything on the basis that it evidence may be found in the future supporting it, then by that logic I can equally argue that the Exodus is a false history and the evidence disproving it may well be found in the future.The reality was that it did exist. Just because there isn't any archaeological evidence of the Exodus and at present I'm taking your word on it alone, doesn't mean that it couldn't be discovered in the future.
What is relevant is the evidence, or lack thereof, at present. There is no evidence in Egyptian records of the Jews as a population being there or evidence of Egyptian influence on Jewish culture had they spent time there. Remember, Exodus claims that 600,000 men fled Egypt and given such a number it would be impossible for there to be no evidence or record of it having occurred.
Instead, we do have evidence that they were in Canaan. Inscriptions there talk about them being there and the influence of Canaanite culture is evident in Jewish language and writing. Even Jehovah has been mooted as having originated as a Canaanite god that was adopted by the Jews.
No you didn't. You first tried to use a straw man claiming that I had said that Paul was the first Christian to seek to convert non-Jews, which I didn't. When that didn't work you tried to argue that he didn't change Christianity but was following it as defined originally, by simply quoting the New Testament as your sole source.I corrected you in respect both to you saying that Paul changed Christianity to suit Gentiles, and also in respect to why Jesus told people not to tell anyone about him being the Son of God.
The same with the 'reason' for keeping the claim of divinity secret - you presume that we should accept the reason given in the New Testament - I can easily reject this and suggest that it was an excuse, invented after the fact, to explain a huge change in doctrine that did not exist before.
Both your arguments rely heavily upon appeals to inappropriate authority - you wish us to accept as a valid source, the very source that we're debating whether it is valid in the first place.
And if I claim that something is written in the Bible and it is not, then by all means do so. But I didn't do that - I claimed that something is written in the Bible and it is. What I added was my interpretation of what was written which clearly was sceptical of its honesty. So quoting something that I've suggested was written by charlatans, isn't going to prove much other than you're more gullible than me.If you post something about the Bible, and it is mistaken, I will open up the Bible and show you where you're mistaken about it. That's fair game and I will do it.
It does sound like a freeloader. How many freeloaders admit to be freeloaders after all or downplay or lie about their lifestyles? And that's all you've presented; the freeloaders' account as if it was true.Does that sound like a freeloader, or does that sound like a man who risked his life to proclaim Jesus as so many others both alongside him and afterwards did?
I never said I was quoting the text, I said I was giving a "cynical interpretation of the story".No it isn't, and I've shown you that you dishonestly quoted the New Testament. Please do the right thing and accept that you're wrong on this.
This may well be true, but that just means we have absolutely nothing better to base our understanding of Jesus' words. It does not imply that they are even remotely accurate, or for that matter that Jesus even existed.The New Testament manuscripts are the closest thing we have to Jesus' words and indeed they are more probable to be Jesus' words than anything else in existence.
Classic; the faithful were not split on the subject, but those who were in disagreement were heretics. You don't see the irony here?The Apostles weren't split on this subject, and based on Jesus teaching there is little doubt over the subject.
As for whether or not Judaisers came into the church in Galatia and taught a false Gospel, that's something else entirely. Indeed, John had to deal with Gnostics undermining the Gospel.
Actually it is rational to consider something as false, or at least unproven, until it is proven. It might make sense to you and you may even like the message, but that does not make it true - it just makes it something you choose to accept as true, without any corroborating evidence.Actually, you presume that it is false without even considering the details. It's not rational to consider something false and not consider the clear reasoning that there is for accepting the New Testament to be true.
Presuming the date is correct (54AD is on the earlier side of such estimates), it still gives the early Christians 15 to 20 years to concoct his grift. Plenty of time TBH.It's entirely reasonable to say that because we a text written by Paul in 54AD to back up central claims of the Gospel that the Christian community believed in that from a very very early point in Christianity. The reality is that there is very little room for suggesting that Christianity was concocted over time.
There's no record of it ever having happened, is the bottom line. Most tellingly, Josephus never mentions it, even though he took every opportunity to recount Herod's other atrocities.On Herod and the massacre of the infants. I need to do some research in respect to that.
About the only possible argument as to why this may have been the case is that the scale of of the alleged massacre was too small to be noticed. So on balance it is unlikely to have happened.
Straw man. No one has suggested that non-Jews were not targeted from the onset.No there isn't. I've shown you rather clearly that the Gospel clearly shows a mission to the Gentiles from the get go. Jesus clearly proclaimed to Gentiles, and so did the other apostles. It is clearly wrong to say that Paul changed Christianity.
What has been suggested is that the original concept of Christianity would have followed many Jewish rules and traditions and that these were watered down as they would have made conversion of non-Jews more difficult.
Christian Presumptions:I don't see why it is a convincing argument that God wouldn't get involved in Creation. I need to ask you why is deism any more convincing than a God who actually cares about His Creation?- A Creator-God began the universe.
- A Creator-God cares about his Creation.
- A Creator-God continues to be involved in his Creation.
- A Creator-God began the universe.
I'm not sure about sceptics, but I'm pretty sure atheists would not argue a Deist case.It's a presumption that has been made by many atheists and skeptics without giving valid reason for why they believe that to be more likely.
You mean why your additional presumptions are not held.If we're going to presume that it is more likely that God is deistic, we need to get our teeth into some the reasons why that presumption is held.
I have; your position, religion or whatever is unproven. Just like Islam and all the rest. If you can prove it, then you'll have something special. Until then, it's not.In your opinion it is not more special. You've not given any sound reason for why you think that yet.
You've not given a single logical reason. Even here you have not given a single piece of corroborating evidence that the Bible is true, whatsoever, instead simply sticking to using the Bible as your sole source.I've given you quite a few logical reasons as to why I can trust the New Testament and I'm going to be giving you more reasons as a whole as to why I trust in the Gospel of Jesus.
The similarities are a lot stronger than a flood.I know that much. The Epic of Gilgamesh gives credence that there was a flood in that region at that time, I don't see how it undermines the Genesis 6 - 8 passage. Unless you want to explain that to me.
Both include a blessed and righteous man (Noah/Ut-Napishtim), who is told by God/the gods to build an Ark, sealed with pitch and with numerous compartments, where he and a few others would carry animals to survive a forthcoming flood designed to punish mankind. Both had birds being sent out, until land was found and a sacrifice was made to God / the gods, who in turn showed regret at having carried out the flood / promised not to carry out another one. A bit too coincidental, don't you think?
Gilgamesh is a lot older than Genesis, btw.
I'm sorry, but that is a moronic response. You've clearly used the New Testament as your sole source. The 'events' you've looked at that happened prior to the crucifixion and the events that happened after the crucifixion are all from that one source. No other.I haven't presumed the validity of the New Testament in respect to the argument from the resurrection. All I've done in that case is look to the events that happened prior to the crucifixion and the events that happened after the crucifixion and have pointed to the X event that happened inbetween.
We're going around in circles at this stage. You are repeatedly seeking to prove the validity of the New Testament using only the New Testament. That is a logical fallacy.
There are none here, or at least none that are not also logical fallacies also - such as presuming something is true because the evidence hasn't been discovered yet.Also there are other arguments in this thread which don't depend on even citing the New Testament.
Logically the first statement there is correct, however the second is not because you presume that one of them must be true; it doesn't - they can all be false.The simple answer is they can't all be true.
There is one God, and there is truth concerning Him and there is falsehood.
Having come to the end of this response, I can't but feel that I've wasted my time. You persist in appeals to inappropriate authority in your arguments and I'm not sure if you even can comprehend this.
The bottom line is that you accept the Bible as true on the basis of faith, not reason. If you could do so on the latter basis you would be able to back it up with corroborating evidence, which you have not.
However, so ingrained is this absolute belief that it is true that it appears beyond your understanding the possibility that it is anything other than this, this blocking your capacity for objective criticism or discussion.0 -
The Corinthian - briefly.
1) You claim that Paul changed Christianity without using the New Testament as a source - what source do you use then?
2) You claim that Paul was a freeloader and wasn't giving an honest account in 2 Corinthians 11 - what source do you have for this then? Or is it just a contrived notion that you have? If so I can't argue against that, and it isn't a good argument against Christianity.
3) Galatians - Paul received his Christian faith orally. He's a convert, and there are clear similarities between his testimony and the other Gospels. In order for him to have received the Gospel as he wrote, he would have had to have received it from others. That's my point.
I think you accept the pseudo-explanations that you've given without basis on faith, being brutally honest with you. You start off by citing the New Testament, and when someone responds with the New Testament claiming you're mistaken, you come up with a contrived narrative without basis. That's not a logical argument.0 -
You admit that there were conflicting interpretations of Christianity at this time, however you consider those put forward by others to have been heretical. The irony is all interpretations of Christianity would have viewed the others as heretical and the one that ultimately wins out politically is the one that gets to write history.philologos wrote: »1) You claim that Paul changed Christianity without using the New Testament as a source - what source do you use then?
You have two possibilities, either the New Testament is true or it is not. Given it has not been proven to be a true text, then I choose to treat it as unproven and not accept anything written in it at face value.2) You claim that Paul was a freeloader and wasn't giving an honest account in 2 Corinthians 11 - what source do you have for this then? Or is it just a contrived notion that you have? If so I can't argue against that, and it isn't a good argument against Christianity.
However if I do accept the broad story told in it though, as historically true, then it begins to sound much like the Book of Mormon; a fanciful tale created to to perpetuate a religious industry. I would have to believe it in it's entirety for me to conclude otherwise.
I'm not saying, that this is what it is, but I am saying that this is a far more likely possibility than it being true as the presumptions to do the former are far fewer than for the latter.
And there are also clear contradictions too as Pushtrak posted earlier, and unfortunately this undermines the claim that it is a true text, unless you end up conceding that it might have mistakes, or inaccuracies or symbolic rather than literal meanings - and even then if you do that, then it opens up questions about the validity of everything in it.3) Galatians - Paul received his Christian faith orally. He's a convert, and there are clear similarities between his testimony and the other Gospels. In order for him to have received the Gospel as he wrote, he would have had to have received it from others. That's my point.
I didn't start off by citing the New Testament though and I'm rather tired of you repeatedly claiming I did. I started with a short interpretation of the New Testament based upon the principle of Occam's Razor.I think you accept the pseudo-explanations that you've given without basis on faith, being brutally honest with you. You start off by citing the New Testament, and when someone responds with the New Testament claiming you're mistaken, you come up with a contrived narrative without basis. That's not a logical argument.
As I've said, I do not accept its validity as proven. Based upon that, I will take the position that requires the shortest leap of faith, which is that perhaps it is true, but this pretty unlikely and it is more likely that it was a bunch of blokes who were onto a good thing until their leader got nailed up and so they reinvented themselves to keep the firm going.
That's why I include other religions in this discussion, because many of them I would conclude exactly the same - and ironically so would you. Yet you have chosen to take the greater leap of faith for one, but probably see Scientology or Mormonism as false for likely the same reasons as I would, despite the fact that they tend to be just as unproven as Christianity.
In all cases we have to take St Paul/St Mark/etc word on it. Or Joe Smith's. Or Mohammed's. Or L. Ron Hubbard's. And that those texts are historically accurate (not just broadly), unedited or censured. And that supernatural things happened.
For me they're all nonsense until these claims can be backed up with sufficient corroborating evidence. For you one of them you've decided is true, even though it's no more proven than the others.
You've made a leap of faith, which is fine - just don't try to paint it as anything more rational than that.0 -
philologos wrote: »I'm still going to do that. Moreover, I do as much as I can, I don't have to respond, but I will. I regard it as important actually. If you just give me the patience that is required, it will come.
I doubt it given you have been promising on these fora for some years now to revisit and revise and improve your list of proofs for Christianity. Still has not happened has it.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQAR-nx4w88
Advertisement