Lost faith

Cabaal

santana75 wrote: »

And what do you think would happen if you came to Christ? Do you honestly believe we're trying to get you to do something that will cause you harm? Coming to Christ will only make your life better!

In your personal view,
Scientologist think following their religion makes that person better, your belief is really no different to that of a Scientologist, Islamic, Jewish faith etc etc etc.

santana75 wrote: »

Isnt it worth the risk to even check all this stuff out for yourself to see if theres any truth to it? Isnt it worth it for even the remote possibility that the promises of God are real?

I'm good thanks, I've gone through christian schools and read the bible.

BUT, if we take your view and apply it to you,
Isn't it worth the risk that you should perhaps at least try out other faiths on the possibility that you are actually following the wrong faith?

Who's to say that all the following you do of your current faith doesn't make the real god more and more angry because you believe the wrong things?
Why risk making god angry?

Lantus

Hi Tony, it's perfectly normal to feel lost, down and even depressed. You have ré evaluated your core value system and found it deficient. The human mind one expanded by a new idea can never return to its original condition.

Your're now on a new journey to redefine those values with the tangible real things we find in reality and between each other. Friendship, experiences, love and happiness are all still real and shared between people. Take all the good and keep moving forwards.

I found great comfort in Christopher hitches and Jacques fresco in helping understand great many things. Lots of you tube videos.

I still hate the idea of dying but if anything it helps force me appreciate life and push to live new experiences even more.

smacl

santana75 wrote: »

And what do you think would happen if you came to Christ? Do you honestly believe we're trying to get you to do something that will cause you harm? Coming to Christ will only make your life better! Its like you have €5 and you are holding on for dear life to that money because you think thats all there is but all the while you could have €1,000,000. Isnt it worth the risk to even check all this stuff out for yourself to see if theres any truth to it? Isnt it worth it for even the remote possibility that the promises of God are real?

Unusual simile. You seem to be rather motivated by greed in the above example, which I'd understood to be antithetical to Christians. Your post reads like an email suggesting that I've won the Nigerian lottery, and sure where's the harm in following the link? As per Cabaal's post above, your logic also holds equally well for all other religions and off the wall belief systems. While Evangelical Christianity works fine for some, Islam for others and there are those who swear by homeopathy and reiki, I struggle to see the more general advantages in of any of them.

ChrisJ84

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It not surprising now when the doctrine of the trinity is an established Christian doctrine. But the author of Matthew writing probably in 80CE is different. Here you not only have a strange usage of onoma, which Greek readers would not have understood but you also have no previous indication of baptism being done in this way and all the other previous references to baptism being only conducted in the name of Jesus. Nothing from Peter nor Mark. And yet its just dropped in in Matthew with no parenthetical statement or explanation. And then 40 years later in Acts we still see no indication of this baptism in the name of three entities. That makes the claim that the triple forumla is original to Matthew highly suspect.

Even if I grant all that you've said, the only way to prove it is to find an alternative manuscript of Matthew (or reference to it) that proves your hypothesis. Until then, it is equally plausible that the wording as we have it is original, for the theological reasons I outlined (baptising in the name of Jesus is a reasonable shorthand for baptising in the names of the 3 persons of the trinity). And as before, even if a shorter form of Matthew 28:19 was original, it would have no doctrinal impact, and would be no different to any of the other few places where the wording of a verse is questionable. Not sure what else we can say on this specific topic?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. I said that the longer ending of Mark is a later interpolation. That means there are no post resurrection appearances in Mark. Your response to that was that it doesn't matter if the long ending of Mark is a later interpolation because we have other gospels. But since Matthew and Luke both copy from Mark, their post resurrection appearances aren't really separately reporting appearances, they're just repeating embellished versions of Mark's original, which itself is a forgery.

Ok, you're assuming that Mark is the only source that Matthew and Luke drew on but we know that isn't true; one of the supposed contradictions you point out below even relies on the fact that Matthew and Luke include material that isn't in Mark! I don't know why you would assume that Matthew and Luke simply embellished a forged resurrection account from another source, unless of course you are starting with the presupposition that the resurrection couldn't have happened.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, once again to repeat myself I'm not implying that there are changes. I'm not speculating about any such thing. I'm pointing out that your claim as repeated here:

"In fact, the evidence we do have points in the other direction."


is unsupportable. We don't have the original documents, nor do we have copies of the complete text for 270 years after they were written (in Matthew's case). So we cannot honestly say that the text now resembles the original. The only honest answer to whether we have a text like what was originally written is we don't know. The available evidence is not sufficient to make a reasonable conclusion.

Ok, but you do accept that there is no actual evidence that the text has been substantially altered?

As a Christian, I start from the position that the bible is authoritative and trustworthy. If there was any evidence that it had been substantially altered in some way, it would obviously be extremely problematic for that position. At the least, my position is a reasonable one in light of the available evidence.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But the gospel writers aren't witnesses or recording what witnesses said. We don't know who wrote the gospels. They are all anonymous. Names aren't attached to them for 100 years after they were written. Witnesses wouldn't need to copy from each other. Matthew who is supposed to be an eyewitness wouldn't need to copy almost all of Mark's gospel (661 out of 678 verses) in order to tell his own story. If they were eyewitnesses then they wouldn't make the mistakes that they do, mistakes about Jewish law, Jewish customs, Palestinian geography, money, burial rituals. They wouldn't contradict each other in the way that they do. They wouldn't need to borrow stories from the Old Testament or Greek myth to tell their stories either. They wouldn't need to tell the story from the perspective of an omniscient third person narrator, we would see it in first person. We wouldn't expect to see complex literary techniques like in media res, chiasmus, foreshadowing etc. In fact all of the rules we have for judging eyewitness testimony are breached by the gospel accounts, individually and as a block.

You're quite right, I was too loose with my wording there. Biographies (or I guess from your perspective, hagiographies) based on eyewitness testimony is a more accurate way to put it. As you said yourself earlier, the gospels are also theological documents; the writers clearly each have themes that they emphasise that are different to the others, and that influences the material they include and the way they structure it. Why assume that Matthew, for example, wouldn't have drawn on material from Mark when the latter was written first and was based on the testimony of the Apostle Peter?

And the gospel writers don't make mistakes about Jewish law, Jewish customs etc. I'm happy to discuss specific examples if you like, but all those objections have straightforward and plausible explanations. I find your position on this quite odd; the gospels were written relatively close (in both space and time) to the events they portray, but the writers were too careless to pick up on these supposedly glaring howlers? And Christians from then to now have been equally blind (wilfully or otherwise) to them?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware what Christians believe, or more importantly, what some Christians believe. However, you're wrong about textual criticism not supporting my position. The errors, fabrications and other problems in the gospels have been documented in the literature for years as has the fictional nature of the gospel stories...

Now you're talking about something different. Textual criticism does not provide evidence that the scriptural text as we have it is substantially different to what was originally written. What you seem to be addressing now is the plausibility of the content itself, not whether it has been altered at some point along the way.

The text criticism you're referencing mostly starts from the presupposition that the supernatural elements of the bible are fabrications; on that basis it's hardly surprising that it comes to different conclusions than an orthodox Christian would. For every critical scholar you list there is another (either Christian or non-believing) who reaches different conclusions.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, the nativity for one. Or the date of Jesus' death for another.

Well, those aren't really contradictions as the differences in the accounts can easily be reconciled. I find those explanations plausible, you obviously do not. But we are looking at the biblical text from two fundamentally different world views; again it's not surprising that we reach different conclusions. And that's fine, I really don't mind if you think the bible is a work of fiction. If you didn't, then you would have to believe in it.

theological

smacl wrote: »

So by your definitions then, would you say that the OP was a Christian? Similarly, what percentage of this countries population that consider themselves Christian do you think are actually Christian? How about the various non-trinitarian Christians throughout the ages? Were the Bogomils, Paulicians, Cathars and various other dualist and Gnostic Christians actually Christians?

The OP hasn't provided this sort of detail, therefore I can't comment. My aim in posting was to help them rediscover Jesus, which I hope they do because as santana75 has said, life with Christ is much better than a life without Him.

It is less than the census figure for sure, as for how much less, I'm not sure. This is why I look to what the Bible tells me about what believing in Jesus involves and work from there.

Christianity inherently requires a belief in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together in unity. I would say that if we reject the Trinity it is heretical and departs from Biblical teaching on the matter.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Christianity inherently requires a belief in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together in unity. I would say that if we reject the Trinity it is heretical and departs from Biblical teaching on the matter.

You wouldn't be the first here, what with Innocent III using this heresy as an excuse for genocide. Genocide of Christians incidentally who also venerated Jesus and held the New Testament to be sacred.

You'll forgive me if I stick with the dictionary definition of what it means to be Christian, which coincides with the OP's description and what I imagine being Christian means to most people in this country who consider themselves Christian.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

You wouldn't be the first here, what with Innocent III using this heresy as an excuse for genocide. Genocide of Christians incidentally who also venerated Jesus and held the New Testament to be sacred.

You'll forgive me if I stick with the dictionary definition of what it means to be Christian, which coincides with the OP's description and what I imagine being Christian means to most people in this country who consider themselves Christian.

My smacl, that is quite the leap! I might be crazy, but can we not say that the Cathars were outside Christian orthodoxy, and that Innocent III was wrong to order they be slaughtered?

theological

smacl wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I stick with the dictionary definition of what it means to be Christian, which coincides with the OP's description and what I imagine being Christian means to most people in this country who consider themselves Christian.

The dictionary definition is pretty much with us. If I use the Oxford Dictionary.

Particularly if you look at the example sentences.

The only one quibble I would have with part of it is the following:

A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

That OR is problematic, but the example sentences they provide point to the Christian faith and Jesus and His words providing substance to Christian belief. If they don't they can't be argued to be Christian belief.

Interestingly on the adjective, it has one example sentence which I have been saying ad nauseum on this thread, and one I won't stop saying.

‘the Christian faith is based upon the Bible’

Here, here! I couldn't agree more with the dictionary in that regard.

Some other great example sentences pointing to some of the substance of the Christian faith.

‘As Christians we can be passionate in arguing about many aspects of the Bible.’

Indeed, we can and should be!

On the very topic we were discussing:

‘Today however there is special need for Christians openly to confess their faith.’

On the substance of Christian faith:

‘They are ordinary people who have become Christians by trusting in Jesus Christ.’

Also - saying Christianity has nothing to do with what Jesus said is probably only slightly less absurd than saying I'm going to kill people for disagreeing with me!

We really need to improve the quality of discussion here.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

My smacl, that is quite the leap! I might be crazy, but can we not say that the Cathars were outside Christian orthodoxy, and that Innocent III was wrong to order they be slaughtered?

Labelling someone a heretic, while meaning they are outside Christian orthodoxy, sounds altogether milder. One doesn't hear of many people being burned for being outside Christian orthodoxy, there has been a strong Christian tradition for burning heretics however. I wonder were they real Christians who did the burning?

smacl

theological wrote: »

That OR is problematic

Rather more than just problematic I'd say. By the definition in any major dictionary, a person baptised into a Christian church is a Christian. Your notion that a Christian is someone who follows the teachings set down in the bible is clearly specious as it would prevent anyone below the age a reason from being a Christian, yet if you look at Catholicism, being Christened happens as a young baby. The Catholic church considers them a Christian at this point, as does the family and community. Even if they never lift a bible in their life time, they're still part of that church. I'm really rather surprised you'd take issue with something this simple.

ifElseThen

I thought the devil was always on the lookout for souls. Offered mine to Lucifer on a plate for a share in the Euromillions. Of course, didn't win.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Labelling someone a heretic, while meaning they are outside Christian orthodoxy, sounds altogether milder. One doesn't here of many people being burned for being outside Christian orthodoxy, there has been a strong Christian tradition for burning heretics however. I wonder were they real Christians who did the burning?

Yep, that's a good question alright!

I'm quite comfortable in asserting that both heresy and burning people at the stake are not things that Christians should indulge in. Thankfully, Jesus offers forgiveness for those and for every other sin we can come up with.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yep, that's a good question alright!

I'm quite comfortable in asserting that both heresy and burning people at the stake are not things that Christians should indulge in. Thankfully, Jesus offers forgiveness for those and for every other sin we can come up with.

The problem with heresy is that it is rooted in a given codified interpretation of a set of beliefs, where there are many such opposing interpretations and sets of beliefs out there. One religious group slaughtering another religious group in the name of religion is common throughout history, even on our own little island. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people being fully allowed to express their personally held religious beliefs, but I take issue with those who would deny others that same freedom. So for example, while I fully respect what being a Christian means to you, I don't think it is reasonable for you to tell other people that they're not Christians because their understanding of the term does not correspond with yours.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

The problem with heresy is that it is rooted in a given codified interpretation of a set of beliefs, where there are many such opposing interpretations and sets of beliefs out there. One religious group slaughtering another religious group in the name of religion is common throughout history, even on our own little island. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people being fully allowed to express their personally held religious beliefs, but I take issue with those who would deny others that same freedom. So for example, while I fully respect what being a Christian means to you, I don't think it is reasonable for you to tell other people that they're not Christians because their understanding of the term does not correspond with yours.

Not killing each other is a good start, and I think everyone should be free to label themselves as and how they see fit. At the same time, I think it is reasonable to question whether those labels correspond with reality.

I don't think it can ever be hateful merely to point out that someone may be mistaken, even in relation to sincerely and deeply held beliefs; it just means that we disagree. You clearly disagree with my definition of the term "Christian", but it would be very odd if I concluded on that basis that you hate me.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not killing each other is a good start, and I think everyone should be free to label themselves as and how they see fit. At the same time, I think it is reasonable to question whether those labels correspond with reality.

I don't think it can ever be hateful merely to point out that someone may be mistaken, even in relation to sincerely and deeply held beliefs; it just means that we disagree. You clearly disagree with my definition of the term "Christian", but it would be very odd if I concluded on that basis that you hate me.

Not sure where hatred crept into this, other than the history surrounding barbaric acts carried out in the name of heresy and related religious differences.

Where I think the problem lies is that your definition of "Christian" is clearly appropriate to you but may not be appropriate to others who consider themselves "Christian". The conclusion that you're right and they're wrong is also a problem where their church considers them Christian, as does their community, and by virtue of baptism, so does every major dictionary definition. Add to that, that as an Evangelical, your own brand of Christianity is very much in the minority in this country I'd be very dubious of your authority in denying other people their religious identity. Ironically perhaps, as an atheist myself, I see this quite often with more dogmatic atheists. If someone is baptised a Christian and considers themselves a Christian, I would suggest it is neither for you nor I to disabuse them of this notion.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Not sure where hatred crept into this, other than the history surrounding barbaric acts carried out in the name of heresy and related religious differences.

Where I think the problem lies is that your definition of "Christian" is clearly appropriate to you but may not be appropriate to others who consider themselves "Christian". The conclusion that you're right and they're wrong is also a problem where their church considers them Christian, as does their community, and by virtue of baptism, so does every major dictionary definition. Add to that, that as an Evangelical, your own brand of Christianity is very much in the minority in this country I'd be very dubious of your authority in denying other people their religious identity. Ironically perhaps, as an atheist myself, I see this quite often with more dogmatic atheists. If someone is baptised a Christian and considers themselves a Christian, I would suggest it is neither for you nor I to disabuse them of this notion.

The problem is that we're actually not responding to other Christians. None of our posts have actually been to other Christians on this thread.

We're responding to hypothetical Christians that you refer to who allegedly don't believe that we need to make disciples (when Jesus says so explicitly) or on other threads where you say that there are hypothetical Christians who don't believe in anything Jesus said. Or those who reject the Trinity (the mainline Christian position for hundreds of years is that it is heresy departing from orthodoxy and it's not Scriptural. I'd love to have a debate on that with someone who denies that God is a Trinity while claiming to follow Christian.)

We've simply said being a Christian means following Jesus and believing in Him according to what He said in Scripture. What a shocker!

And no, I'm not planning on burning anyone at a stake...

smacl

theological wrote: »

The problem is that we're actually not responding to other Christians. None of our posts have actually been to other Christians on this thread.

We're responding to hypothetical Christians....

Seems to me like the OP in this thread is a "hypothetical Christian" by your definition, though most unreservedly a Christian as I understand it. Perhaps we're better of using qualifiers such as "Evangelical" Christian to avoid confusion here?

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Not sure where hatred crept into this, other than the history surrounding barbaric acts carried out in the name of heresy and related religious differences.

Somewhere between burning heretics at the stake and denying people their religious identity I thought that was what you were implying.

I have to agree with everything that @theological has said above, the term "Christian" simply cannot be endlessly malleable so that it means whatever we each decide it means. No true Scotsman is rightly considered a fallacy; but the idea that everyone can be a Scotsman is every bit as absurd.

The only thing I would add is that your hammering on this is certainly effective; I think this is the third thread that has disappeared down the same post-modern rabbit hole.

theological

smacl wrote: »

Seems to me like the OP in this thread is a "hypothetical Christian" by your definition, though most unreservedly a Christian as I understand it. Perhaps we're better of using qualifiers such as "Evangelical" Christian to avoid confusion here?

This is all I said about the OP:

theological wrote:

The OP hasn't provided this sort of detail, therefore I can't comment. My aim in posting was to help them rediscover Jesus, which I hope they do because as santana75 has said, life with Christ is much better than a life without Him.

If you're saying something else, that's up to you but I won't be taking your words for me.

I'm not going down this rabbit hole any further. I'd like to discuss something of substance.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

.I have to agree with everything that @theological has said above, the term "Christian" simply cannot be endlessly malleable so that it means whatever we each decide it means. No true Scotsman is rightly considered a fallacy; but the idea that everyone can be a Scotsman is every bit as absurd.

Not nearly so absurd as to suggest most people from Scotland aren't in fact Scottish because they're not wearing kilts in your preferred choice of tartan.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

1. Arguing about the definition of "Christian" is unedifying.

2. And it has nothing to do with the gospel. Whatever else scripture is, it is not a dictionary.

3. For what it's worth, scripture indicates that the word "Christian" was coined about the early Christians by non-Christians, probably as a pejorative term. Only later did the Christians claim the name for themselves. Which suggests, perhaps, that the true test of whether you're a Christian or not is whether non-Christians think you're a Christian.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Not nearly so absurd as to suggest most people from Scotland aren't in fact Scottish because they're not wearing kilts in your preferred choice of tartan.

Touché! I'm really not trying to set out a narrow or uniform exclusivity here; on the contrary, there is a wonderfully rich variety in how Christianity is expressed around the world and through history. The common factor is in a response to the good news of the gospel. The good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is something that everyone needs, and we never grow beyond it. I need it, everyone who identifies as a Christian needs it, and atheists like yourself need it as well.

It also strikes me that your position here, taken on its own terms, is completely irrefutable. We can look within, decide who and what we are, and no-one can tell us otherwise. But from my perspective, that precise notion is part of the problem; the gospel calls us to look away from ourselves, to hear the good news, believe it, and believe in the one it points us to. After that, it really doesn't matter what we call ourselves, and everything else we might disagree on is very much secondary.

@Peregrinus is right, an argument isn't going to do anyone any good. I hope I've done my position enough justice that that you can understand it clearly. Equally I hope that I'm doing your position justice in my responses, albeit that I disagree with you.

one world order

Putting your trust in Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I need it, everyone who identifies as a Christian needs it, and atheists like yourself need it as well.

I think we should agree to differ on that one. As an atheist I need the gospel about as much as you need the Koran. As as a secularist I don't think it is reasonable for you to insist that I need the gospel, any more than I think it would be reasonable for a devout Muslim to insist that you need the Koran. I do think it is reasonable to respect that others don't share your beliefs and to respect that their right to hold and express their own beliefs is every bit as valid as yours. If you fail to accord that very basic respect to others, why then should they accord it to you? Do unto others and all that.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

I think we should agree to differ on that one. As an atheist I need the gospel about as much as you need the Koran. As as a secularist I don't think it is reasonable for you to insist that I need the gospel, any more than I think it would be reasonable for a devout Muslim to insist that you need the Koran. I do think it is reasonable to respect that others don't share your beliefs and to respect that their right to hold and express their own beliefs is every bit as valid as yours. If you fail to accord that very basic respect to others, why then should they accord it to you? Do unto others and all that.

Oh absolutely we need to agree to differ on it, but it doesn't change the fact that I happen to believe that it's true. It's a necessary part of my worldview and belief system. I don't have any problem with a Muslim (or an atheist for that matter) "evangelising" for what they believe in; in fact if they believe it's true then I would expect them to do so. We see that in respect of all sorts of things which aren't connected to religion.

Respecting others rights to hold and express their beliefs (which I wholeheartedly do) is not the same as declaring all beliefs to be equally true.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Respecting others rights to hold and express their beliefs (which I wholeheartedly do) is not the same as declaring all beliefs to be equally true.

Again, I think we'll probably disagree here. Beliefs are by definition only subjectively true, as opposed to facts which are objectively and demonstrably true, i.e. independent of belief. So what you believe to be true is only true for you and those others that share that belief. Contradictory beliefs are equally as true for those people who hold those beliefs.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Again, I think we'll probably disagree here. Beliefs are by definition only subjectively true, as opposed to facts which are objectively and demonstrably true, i.e. independent of belief. So what you believe to be true is only true for you and those others that share that belief. Contradictory beliefs are equally as true for those people who hold those beliefs.

Yes, we will definitely disagree there!

What kinds of things would you classify as "facts," and how can they be shown to be objectively and demonstrably true? Would you say that your atheism is objectively true, i.e. that there is no God, regardless of what religious people believe to the contrary?

quokula

tonybtonyb wrote: »

I always held my christian beliefs as my compass in life, i always did my best for others and showed a helping hand when I could, I remember through my twenties i was quite a happy chap, I was never an avid mass goer and partied like many did my age but always believed in the man above and that force was looking out for me and I did my best to always live with the do unto others philosophy, I was very popular with my peers because I was a positive, confident, decent person to be around and never spoke ill of people. I could look in the mirror and feel proud of myself. I would give my friends the shirt off my back if it would help them.

You don't need christian beliefs for any of that to hold true. You've obviously had some setbacks in life that you need to deal with, and deal with the sad fact that some people are selfish assholes, but they really are a minority. Continue being a decent person. Learn from people who've betrayed your trust, but don't let that stop you trusting others. The "do unto others philosophy" comes from our evolutionary need to cooperate to thrive and holds perfectly true without all the god stuff.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yes, we will definitely disagree there!

What kinds of things would you classify as "facts," and how can they be shown to be objectively and demonstrably true? Would you say that your atheism is objectively true, i.e. that there is no God, regardless of what religious people believe to the contrary?

An example of a fact is that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299792458 metres per second. Not only is it observably true, many commonly used tools in our day to day living such as GPS navigation, depend on this fact.

My atheism is not objectively true, it is my subjective belief that a God or gods do not exist. I've arrived at this on the basis that I've seen no observable evidence that such a thing should exist supported by the fact that most religious belief systems contradict one another so it seems more likely to me that none of them are true rather than any one of them being true. Additionally, I'm concerned that the arguments in support of religious belief are laden with confirmation bias. People fear death and want to believe in life everlasting therefore are more readily persuaded towards a belief systems that offers this. To my mind this also undermines any consensus based arguments one might make in favour of religious belief. For all that, my atheism is still just a subjective belief.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Additionally, I'm concerned that the arguments in support of religious belief are laden with confirmation bias. People fear death and want to believe in life everlasting therefore are more readily persuaded towards a belief systems that offers this.

Yet people who have no reason to fear death, because they believe it involves nothingness, fear death.

Isn't "I believe there is nothing therefore I will hold to a belief system which supports my belief that there is nothing" confirmation bias?