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

Apologetics Thread!!!

1…45679

Comments

  • #242
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    doctoremma wrote: »
    How does your above strawman claim fit with your earlier quote:

    However, where Christianity really offers something that other religions don't, is that it does not merely demand that we live by a moral code. It enables those who were previously unable to follow that code to increasingly do so, by virtue of the fact that God Himself resides within them.

    I think this fits Sam Vimes claim perfectly.

    I think PDN is saying not that this is an argument that it is true, simply an argument that it is appealing in ways other religions are not and thus attracts people to it in ways other religions don't. Once attracted to the religion simply for the benefits people then think about whether the basis behind it is actually true or not

    I think there is a lot of cross wiring going on, since the rest of us were discussing if it is true and PDN is discussing if it is appealing, independently of whether it is true.


  • #243
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    How does your above strawman claim fit with your earlier quote:

    However, where Christianity really offers something that other religions don't, is that it does not merely demand that we live by a moral code. It enables those who were previously unable to follow that code to increasingly do so, by virtue of the fact that God Himself resides within them.

    I think this fits Sam Vimes claim perfectly.

    I made perfectly clear that my comments (which you quoted above) were not at all designed to prove that Christianity is true. They were a response to Sam's question why some of us tried Christianity rather than any other religion.

    That was a response to a position I have been consistently advancing for several pages now, namely that it is impossible to reach a position of either Christianity or atheism by deductive logic. Instead I have been explaining a more inductive approach whereby people try Christianity out because it offers a solution to a pressing problem (one that other religions don't offer), then they find that it delivers on this issue. Then they explore the truth claims of Christianity more, and, because they have already derived benefit from the faith, they do so without some of the more extreme anti-supernatural presuppositions.

    It really shouldn't be hard to understand the difference between an inductive and a deductive approach, but I appreciate it might be difficult for anyone who thinks that everything can be worked out by equations.

    The really frustrating thing is that, when I've clearly explained this inductive approach, that someone like Sam will quote part of what I've said and respond with "Well that doesn't prove it's true." I never said it proved it was true. Sam is treating an inductive approach as if it were deductive. And it is like having a conversation with a parrot that repeats the same unthinking phrases irrespective of what you might say.

    That's why I employed the straw man to talk to the parrot.


  • #244
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    I made perfectly clear that my comments (which you quoted above) were not at all designed to prove that Christianity is true. They were a response to Sam's question why some of us tried Christianity rather than any other religion.

    That was a response to a position I have been consistently advancing for several pages now, namely that it is impossible to reach a position of either Christianity or atheism by deductive logic. Instead I have been explaining a more inductive approach whereby people try Christianity out because it offers a solution to a pressing problem (one that other religions don't offer), then they find that it delivers on this issue. Then they explore the truth claims of Christianity more, and, because they have already derived benefit from the faith, they do so without some of the more extreme anti-supernatural presuppositions.

    It really shouldn't be hard to understand the difference between an inductive and a deductive approach, but I appreciate it might be difficult for anyone who thinks that everything can be worked out by equations.

    The really frustrating thing is that, when I've clearly explained this inductive approach, that someone like Sam will quote part of what I've said and respond with "Well that doesn't prove it's true." I never said it proved it was true. Sam is treating an inductive approach as if it were deductive. And it is like having a conversation with a parrot that repeats the same unthinking phrases irrespective of what you might say.

    That's why I employed the straw man to talk to the parrot.

    Oh, Ok, because I thought you had said that the moral actions of someone were divinely inspired. Because god is in them. Which was the starting principle of that circular wheel thing.


  • #245
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Oh, Ok, because I thought you had said that the moral actions of someone were divinely inspired. Because god is in them. Which was the starting principle of that circular wheel thing.

    I said that was part of the Christian belief, distinguishing Christianity from other religions. But I never advanced it as a proof for the truthfulness of Christianity.


  • #246
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    I said that was part of the Christian belief, distinguishing Christianity from other religions. But I never advanced it as a proof for the truthfulness of Christianity.

    At what point does a christian acquire that particular belief? After he has sought a solution in religion? Or does he go looking for the solution with the divine part in mind?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    doctoremma wrote: »
    At what point does a christian acquire that particular belief? After he has sought a solution in religion? Or does he go looking for the solution with the divine part in mind?

    I think that many Christians start off with an attitude of "Let's give this a go, what's the worst that will happen if it turns out to be a load of fluff?"

    The Bible itself says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good!" (Psalm 34:8). Ultimately there's only way of discovering whether something tastes good or not - you have to stick your tongue out and taste it!

    Obviously it is a big factor when you know someone else who has benefited from embracing Christianity - well over 95% of converts to Christianity do so on the recommendation of someone they trust, a family member or friend. Then you give it a go to see if it can do the same for you.

    Everybody's experience is different. Some people are content to never examine the apologetics side of it and just go with the flow. I suspect they are the kind of people who ask few questions and can even hold mutually contradictory opinions.

    Others, like me, are constantly asking questions. Every bit of information I receive - be it concerning history, politics, science or religion - I ask myself, "How does this fit with other things that I believe to be true? If this is indeed true then does that indicate that I might be mistaken on something related?" So obviously my kind of personality is much more inclined to explore the philosophy, history and evidence for and against my faith.


  • #248
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    PDN wrote: »
    I think that many Christians start off with an attitude of "Let's give this a go, what's the worst that will happen if it turns out to be a load of fluff?"

    I think many more don't make or have the opportunity to make such a conscious decision but I'm guessing that's another argument.
    PDN wrote: »
    Others, like me, are constantly asking questions. Every bit of information I receive - be it concerning history, politics, science or religion - I ask myself, "How does this fit with other things that I believe to be true?

    So this is my sticking point. You've decided to have a shot at a religion, to help you through, find a solution, whatever. Did you already believe in god (not you personally, but as the christian answering my questions)? Or did you find you could suspend disbelief sufficiently? I absolutely can see what religion offers people - it's a very attractive concept. But I can't make myself believe in god/heaven/etc so ultimately could never "give it a go". I'd be lying to myself and everyone around me.

    So, how does someone suspend that disbelief? Or are they going in there with the god thing already in place?


  • #249
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    I made perfectly clear that my comments (which you quoted above) were not at all designed to prove that Christianity is true. They were a response to Sam's question why some of us tried Christianity rather than any other religion.

    That was a response to a position I have been consistently advancing for several pages now, namely that it is impossible to reach a position of either Christianity or atheism by deductive logic. Instead I have been explaining a more inductive approach whereby people try Christianity out because it offers a solution to a pressing problem (one that other religions don't offer), then they find that it delivers on this issue. Then they explore the truth claims of Christianity more, and, because they have already derived benefit from the faith, they do so without some of the more extreme anti-supernatural presuppositions.
    Yes that's pretty much what I said, that christianity contains enough self evident truth and enough benefit that you accept the rest on faith. But doing so is neither inductive nor deductive logic, it's a leap in logic. All you're telling me is that you lost your objectivity because you found christianity beneficial. It's still the embedded truth fallacy.

    If your point is only that people tried out christianity to see if it would be beneficial and found that it was then that's absolutely fine, that is a perfectly good reason to choose a moral and social philosophy by which to live your life but if this made them look at the supernatural claims of the bible in any less critical a light than they would any other extraordinary claim then they have made a leap in logic, they have conflated two issues that have nothing to do with each other

    And contrary to your assertion that one cannot arrive at atheism by deductive logic, all I have to do is realise that any benefits offered by christianity have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether its supernatural claims are true or not and look at it objectively the same way I would look at anything else. You acknowledge that you can't arrive at believing christianity (and presumably any religion) through deductive logic alone which means you become an atheist by default. In the absence of a purely logic reason to believe an extraordinary claim, the purely logical position is not to believe it until such a reason is provided


  • #250
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes that's pretty much what I said, that christianity contains enough self evident truth and enough benefit that you accept the rest on faith.

    This is a big bone of contention for me, and Christians and Non-Christians are guilty of it. Faith inaccurately descibed. Lazy or misinformed Christians say, 'I have faith' when they can't answer something like, 'how do you know God exists', which in turn leads to this belief that faith is this wishful hope, or blind belief. Faith is to do with Trust! Belief is a pre-requisite for faith! I have faith in Christ means that I trust in him to fulfil his promises etc. When Abraham was 'justified by faith', it wasn't some 'belief with no evidence'. It was a wholehearted trust in God and his ways. A correct context of 'I have faith' would be:

    How do you know God wont just pull the plug on the big plan?
    'I have faith', would be appropriate.

    But this whole:

    Does God exist?
    Yes.
    How do you know?
    i have faith.

    is one of the most frustrating things I have heard/seen. Arrrrrgh, it wrecks me noggin! Especially when you see smart but equally lazy or misinformed non-believers reguritate it.


  • #251
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I do think it could have a major effect on your life and still be false. This would explain why all other religions have major effects on people's lives and are still false.


    Ok back up there a little bit. Of the other major religions in the world today which of the founders thereof ever made the claims about themselves that Jesus made about Himself? Buddha? Mohamed? Confucius? None of these founders ever made the ridiculous claims that Jesus made about Himself. They never preached themselves as the only way, they preached a way apart form themselves. Of the major religions in the world today only Jesus ever preached Himself as the only way to salvation and everlasting life. Which means He was either NUTS, a LIAR or who He actually claimed to be. He has to be one of the above three unless you can think up another category. I know you will point me to other people who did make claims like Jesus made about themselves, but they are not respected in the same way as Jesus et all are, and if these claimers can be viewed as NUTS or FRAUDS then why isn’t Jesus ever viewed as a NUT or FRAUD even by skeptics? He is nearly always put in the category of good and wise teacher but not supernatural or the Son of God, even the Muslims put Him in this category. If He really was good and wise then He must be supernatural too, if not then the idea that He was good and wise must be revisited. He can’t be both good and wise and not be who He claimed to be. If He is not who He claimed to be then He can be good in that He was just an honest megalomaniac who believes stupid things but not wise enough to know better. Or He could be wise enough to know better but is deliberately telling lies in order to start up a new religion. This is what CS Lewis calls the Startling Alternate and it is quite Startling when you allow yourself think about it.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    And I would think that this should demonstrate to you that your assertion is false, unless you are claiming that there are unique facets of Christianity that mean it can't be true and have this effect, that don't apply to all other religions

    Like it or not Wick, merely saying that something is false is not what makes it false. It is either false or it's not. To determine the falsities or not of something requires further study, but study with an open mind. You have admitted time and again that the possibility of the ‘supernatural’ being an explanation for anything, is out. So why do you even bother to post in this forum? To prove that the claims of Christ were false? Then you admit He was either a NUT or LIAR or at least His followers were.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    How do explain the 1.5 billion Muslims? Or the 10 million Scientologists?

    I get your point, if Christianity is true then what about the positive affect that the Muslim's religion has on people etc? For one Muslims, don't claim to have a personal relation ship with God by simply trusting in Him. To be considered a Muslim you must do certain deeds and failure to do said deeds renders you non-Muslim. Christianity is different, all that is required of a person to be Christian is that they simply trust in God and what He has wrought in and through Christ. Trust what His Word says for you life. That's it! As long as you stay in this trusting state then you are being Christian.

    Does that make you feel great everyday? No it sure does not. Sometimes I wake up nearly cursing the day I became a Christian because the world in their incapacity to fail to see what the Christians can see really easily gets me really down at times. But be that as it may, I would never give up my faith just so I could feel good all the time. My faith is not about feeling good all the time, it’s about serving an unseen Master and being the rebel I am I tend to kick against that a lot, but in my wiser moments I know it is the right way for me to go. Like Martin Luther I say: "Here stand I, I can do no other, so help me God." But I do take your point, but I wasn't really holding up the power I experience in my life as proof of the truthfulness of Christianity, rather I find it ‘personally’ really difficult to believe that such an inner feeling of peace and oneness with God could ever have been the unintentional result of a deliberately manufactured deceitful lying doctrine, because that is all it is if it's not really true. If Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be then I really do not need Christianity and I would suggest avoiding it like the plague. It's a ridiculous life style if its not true.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    This is a big bone of contention for me, and Christians and Non-Christians are guilty of it. Faith inaccurately descibed. Lazy or misinformed Christians say, 'I have faith' when they can't answer something like, 'how do you know God exists', which in turn leads to this belief that faith is this wishful hope, or blind belief. Faith is to do with Trust! Belief is a pre-requisite for faith! I have faith in Christ means that I trust in him to fulfil his promises etc. When Abraham was 'justified by faith', it wasn't some 'belief with no evidence'. It was a wholehearted trust in God and his ways. A correct context of 'I have faith' would be:

    How do you know God wont just pull the plug on the big plan?
    'I have faith', would be appropriate.

    But this whole:

    Does God exist?
    Yes.
    How do you know?
    i have faith.

    is one of the most frustrating things I have heard/seen. Arrrrrgh, it wrecks me noggin! Especially when you see smart but equally lazy or misinformed non-believers reguritate it.

    Just to be clear, you're saying that belief in god has nothing to do with faith and faith only applies to trusting in him once you have already decided that he exists?

    So how do you decide that he exists and is the god of the bible?


  • #253
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Just to be clear, you're saying that belief in god has nothing to do with faith and faith only applies to trusting in him once you have already decided that he exists?

    Yes. Belief is a pre-requisite, rather than faith being a basis for belief.


  • #254
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yes. Belief is a pre-requisite, rather than faith being a basis for belief.

    So how do you decide that he exists and is the god of the bible?


  • #255
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So how do you decide that he exists and is the god of the bible?

    Jesus! Pure and simple.


  • #256
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Ok back up there a little bit. Of the other major religions in the world today which of the founders thereof ever made the claims about themselves that Jesus made about Himself? Buddha? Mohamed? Confucius?

    Ok, back up even further. How specific do I need to get in the details, and why does that matter.

    All religions have specific details unique to them but if you strip back the superficial details they all basically have the same message, there is something wrong with you, it is caused by supernatural reason X and the solution is supernatural reason Y.

    Buddha certain never claimed to be named Jesus or be born in Bethlehem or be the "son" of the Abrahamic deity.

    You could equally say that Jesus or anyone else ever claimed to be Buddha, thus demonstrating the uniqueness of Buddhism (and proving it correct?).

    Or no other religion has other than Scientology has ever claimed that human souls were placed on Earth millions of years ago by an alien over lord. Scientology preaches itself as the only way, which leads to great YouTube clips of Tom Cruise denouncing everything from western psychiatry to chocolates.

    So you need to explain to me the claims that you think are unique to Christianity and why you think their uniqueness demonstrates something that the unique claims of other religions don't
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Of the major religions in the world today only Jesus ever preached Himself as the only way to salvation and everlasting life. Which means He was either NUTS, a LIAR or who He actually claimed to be.
    Well that isn't actually true, plenty of people throughout history have believed themselves to be god like figures or in fact gods, and have told their worshippers that they must worship them to receive salvation from supernatural problem X

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

    But even if Jesus was actually the only person in history who had ever claimed to be "the way" to salvation, what do you think that demonstrates?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I know you will point me to other people who did make claims like Jesus made about themselves but they are not respected in the same was Jesus et all are, and if these claimers can be viewed as NUTS or FRAUDS then why isn’t Jesus ever viewed as a NUT or FRAUD even by skeptics?

    I think lots of sceptics would consider that Jesus may have been nuts and/or a fraud. I personally would be more in the fraud camp, considering MO of cult leaders and that Jesus is never described as not working and being supported by his followers during his time preaching.

    But again what do you think that would demonstrate even if it was true?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Like it or not Wick, merely saying that something is false is not what makes it false.

    Hence the "this should demonstrate to you" bit of my last post :pac:

    I'm not merely saying it, I'm giving the reason as well.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You have admitted time and again that the possibility of the ‘supernatura’ being an explanation to anything is out.

    I've actually never "admitted" that and when to great lengths only a few posts ago in this thread to explain exactly why that isn't my position.

    Now I will resist the urge to throw a PDN style hissy fit about misrepresented view points because I'm happy to explain to you again why that isn't my position and why such a position doesn't in fact make much sense :p

    The supernatural is simply a term for explanations that require and expansion of the current understand of the natural laws of the universe.

    If you took a physics text book from a college today and went back in time to 150 years ago pretty much the entire book would be considered supernatural by the standards of the day.

    Our currently understanding of the natural world is constantly changing and improving, and as such our current understanding of the natural laws of the universe is constantly expanding.

    An explanation that would be considered supernatural a day ago may be incorporated into the current model of the universe today and be considered a completely natural phenomena tomorrow.

    So it makes no sense to say that you would reject an explanation because it is supernatural. If people did that science would have ground to a halt long ago.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I get your point, if Christianity is true then what about the positive affect that the Muslim's religion has on people etc? For one Muslims, don't claim to have a personal relation ship with God by simply trusting in Him. To be considered a Muslim you must do certain deeds and failure to do said deeds renders you non-Muslim. Christianity is different, all that is required of a person to be Christian is that they simply trust in God and what He has wrought in and through Christ. Trust what His Word says for you life. That's it! As long as you stay in this trusting state then you are being Christian.

    Does that make you feel great everyday? No it sure does not. Sometimes I wake up nearly cursing the day I became a Christian because the world in their incapacity to see what the Christians can see really gets me down at times. But be that as it may I would never give up my faith just so I could feel good all the time. My faith is not about feeling good all the time, it’s about serving an unseen Master and being the rebel I am I tend to kick against that a lot, but in my wiser moments I know it is the right way for me to go. Like Martin Luther: "Here stand I, I can do no other, so help me God." But I do take your point, but I wasn't really holding up the power I experience in my life as proof of the truthfulness of Christianity, rather I find it ‘personally’ really difficult to believe that such an inner feeling of peace and oneness with God could ever have been manufactured by a deceitful lying doctrine if that's all that it really is. If Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be then I really do not need Christianity and I would suggest avoiding it like the plague.

    That's all great Soul Winner but you didn't answer the question.

    Are you trying to say that the reasons other religions make people happy, improve their lives, make them feel special, feel loved, feel content and make the world seem to make sense can't be the reasons that Christianity does all these things because Christianity isn't like any other religion?

    I would have to disagree with that right off the bat, but I will wait to see if that actually is your argument.


  • #257
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Jesus!

    I know how you feel :pac:


  • #258
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I think lots of sceptics would consider that Jesus may have been nuts and/or a fraud. I personally would be more in the fraud camp, considering MO of cult leaders and that Jesus is never described as not working and being supported by his followers during his time preaching.

    This is most interesting part of your post and something I would like to focus on. First off thank you for actually answering my question. If you believe that Jesus was someone who was lazy and didn't work, who lived off the sweat of His disciples then I would have to ask you what evidence you have that makes you think such a thing of Him? If the Gospels are your source then what about all the healings and feedings that Jesus performed for many people recorded in that same source? Some might say that if He had just become a carpenter then a lot of people would not have been healed or fed. What would you say to these people? The man blind from birth for instance. Or do you think that these parts of the Gospel records are false but the parts that reveal that He didn't work are accurate?


  • #259
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If the Gospels are your source then what about all the healings and feedings that Jesus performed for many people recorded in that same source? Some might say that if He had just become a carpenter then a lot of people would not have been healed or fed. What would you say to these people? The man blind from birth for instance. Or do you think that these parts of the Gospel records are false but the parts that reveal that He didn't work are accurate?

    Probably (I hope you are not going back to the tired argument that the Bible is either all true or all a lie).

    If we imagine Jesus as being a cult leader who was supported by his flock (as most of them are) then examples from other religions show that his followers would not be particularly embarrassed by this, as they would feel they were supporting a worthy cause.

    Why would they make up a job for him if he didn't have one? If they believed in Jesus the would have no reason to be ashamed of supporting him.

    By the way you didn't answer any of my questions :)


  • #260
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Probably (I hope you are not going back to the tired argument that the Bible is either all true or all a lie).

    Or the tired arguments that the parts I like are true but the parts I don't are lies?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If we imagine Jesus as being a cult leader who was supported by his flock (as most of them are) then examples from other religions show that his followers would not be particularly embarrassed by this, as they would feel they were supporting a worthy cause.

    Why would they even bother?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why would they make up a job for him if he didn't have one? If they believed in Jesus the would have no reason to be ashamed of supporting him.

    What reasons would they have for believing in Him?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    By the way you didn't answer any of my questions :)

    What questions?


  • #261
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Or the tired arguments that the parts I like are true but the parts I don't are lies?
    That too.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Why would they even bother?
    Well, judging by other cults, they would most likely believed in Jesus and feel that it was important for them and others that he was allowed to do his work without the hassle of actually doing work.

    This to me would suggest it was more likely that Jesus was a fraud than insane (since you are making me pick which is more likely), as insanity is harder to control and present a positive external fascade with.

    Though a cult leader like Jim Jones shows how one can start off as merely a fraud and move quickly into the nuts category.

    (note to any mods getting ichy to delete this under the excuse that I'm insulting Jesus, I'm being asked by Soul Winner these questions and I'm simply presenting my opinion. I've no idea if Jesus was a fraud or nuts or both as there is not nearly enough historical evidence to make a firm judgement either way. I'm simply stating which in my opinion is more likely)
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    What reasons would they have for believing in Him?
    The same reasons you have for believing him, the promise of salvation.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    What questions?

    From above

    So you need to explain to me the claims that you think are unique to Christianity and why you think their uniqueness demonstrates something that the unique claims of other religions don't

    and

    Are you trying to say that the reasons other religions make people happy, improve their lives, make them feel special, feel loved, feel content and make the world seem to make sense can't be the reasons that Christianity does all these things because Christianity isn't like any other religion?


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well, judging by other cults, they would most likely believed in Jesus and feel that it was important for them and others that he was allowed to do his work without the hassle of actually doing work.

    This to me would suggest it was more likely that Jesus was a fraud than insane (since you are making me pick which is more likely), as insanity is harder to control and present a positive external fascade with.

    Do you really think that Jesus would have hated working that much to go to such great lengths to avoid it? Like really, do you think that?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Though a cult leader like Jim Jones shows how one can start off as merely a fraud and move quickly into the nuts category.

    At what point did Jesus go from lazy fraud to nut job?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The same reasons you have for believing him, the promise of salvation.

    Believing in a doctrine because it promises salvation is not an adequate description of why I believe in Christianity. No, rather I believe in it because I've been convinced that is in fact true, not that it promises salvation.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    From above

    So you need to explain to me the claims that you think are unique to Christianity and why you think their uniqueness demonstrates something that the unique claims of other religions don't

    Did I really suggest that the reason which makes Christianity true is because it is unique? If I did then I apologize, that was not my intention. If uniqueness made something true then all religions would be true, as each one has unique features. What makes Christianity true to me starts with the leader's claims that He made about Himself, claims which were vindicated by His resurrection from the dead. I start with the resurrection and work back from there. If I can believe that happened and that it happened to the very person who made these claims, then what better place can one start if one is looking to see if God had a hand in the afairs of human history? I cannot find a better example of this than what is reported to have happened with Jesus. As that great ex atheist Anthony Flew elegantly puts it:

    "In point of fact, I think the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind, and could both speak and write in all the relevant languages. If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat"
    Wicknight wrote: »
    and

    Are you trying to say that the reasons other religions make people happy, improve their lives, make them feel special, feel loved, feel content and make the world seem to make sense can't be the reasons that Christianity does all these things because Christianity isn't like any other religion?

    Before I can answer that I would need to understand it, can you perhaps rephrase please? :confused:


  • #263
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Do you really think that Jesus would have hated working that much to go to such great lengths to avoid it? Like really, do you think that?

    No :confused:
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    At what point did Jesus go from lazy fraud to nut job?

    No idea. I've never met him nor was I around to watch him.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Believing in a doctrine because it promises salvation is not an adequate description of why I believe in Christianity. No, rather I believe in it because I've been convinced that is in fact true, not that it promises salvation.

    Ok, fair enough. I believed we had a conversation a while back where you stated the offer as salvation as one of the reasons you believed Christianity was the real deal, but I might have been mistaken.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    What makes Christianity true to me starts with the leader's claims that He made about Himself, claims which were vindicated by His resurrection from the dead.

    But every religious believer says that about every religion.

    What makes Islam true to a Muslim is what Mohammad said, and what vindicates what he says is that he was visited by an angel. A Christian simply says "I don't believe that actually happened"

    The point from the position of someone like myself on the outside of religion in general looking in is that all religions claim these types of things as justification for their faith but no religion has been able to demonstrate the supernatural claim that support their assertions actually happened.

    Or to put it another way how is your belief that Jesus was resurrected any more demonstrated or believable than a Muslim's faith that Mohammad was visited by an angel? I appreciate it is to you, but can you demonstrate this to someone who doesn't believe either?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I start with the resurrection and work back from there.
    That isn't a particularly good way of doing it in my opinion, since if you start from the supernatural claims of any religion and work backwards you will believe in the religion (I start at the appearance of the angel to Mohammad and then work my way backwards)
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Before I can answer that I would need to understand it, can you perhaps rephrase please? :confused:

    Ok well lets look at what you said here

    I get your point, if Christianity is true then what about the positive affect that the Muslim's religion has on people etc? For one Muslims, don't claim to have a personal relation ship with God by simply trusting in Him.

    What do you think it means that Muslim's don't claim to have a personal relationship with God by simply trusting in Him (I think they do but for the sake of argument lets say they don't)

    How does that differentiate the positive effect on their lives from the positive effect Christianity has on a Christian's life?

    Do you accept that a fake religion, a placebo religion as it were, can have the same positive effect on someone's life, and thus this cannot be taken as justification that the religion is true?

    Or do you think it can in the case of Christianity as Christianity could not have a positive effect unless it was true, where as other religions could.


  • #264
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    But every religious believer says that about every religion.

    What makes Islam true to a Muslim is what Mohammad said, and what vindicates what he says is that he was visited by an angel. A Christian simply says "I don't believe that actually happened"

    Mohammad may have been visited by an angel and given a specific message. The thing is though, his message contradicts the Christian message which means that one (at least) of those messages is wrong. Now maybe both are wrong but both can not be right. For instance, Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified, hence they don't believe that He was raised, which is central to Christianity. The reason Christianity has more going for it is that there are sources out side of the New Testament (Jewish and Roman) which attest that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person who actually lived, who was crucified under the Judean governorship of Pontius Pilate and who was believed in as a God by His followers even years after his execution. These secular sources are totally independent of the New Testament accounts and yet they gel quite nicely with the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry recorded in the New Testament. You won't find such corroboration for Mohammad who was alone when the angel visited him, there are no other eye witnesses to this event unlike the events described in the New Testament.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The point from the position of someone like myself on the outside of religion in general looking in is that all religions claim these types of things as justification for their faith but no religion has been able to demonstrate the supernatural claim that support their assertions actually happened.
    Well apart from video evidence it is pretty hard to prove anything really happened in history but even in the absence of such video footage there is a mountain of texts that we can scour which give clues to the authenticity or not of said accounts. You will not find any evidence for corroboration in the New Testament text, nor will you find evidence that the reporters were intentionally lying about what they report. Hence what they report has a pretty good chance of being true and if it is true then we are dealing with the most unusual person to have ever walked this earth in the pages of history and hence he is worthy of further investigation and if one can be convinced of His claims then He is worthy of allegiance too. What more can one do if one is convinced by the evidence which is there for everyone to check? My point is that there is no such evidence for anyone else in any other religion who made the claims that Jesus made about Himself, so if you are going to reject Jesus on the basis of some kind of evidence that He wasn’t who He claimed to be then you must produce that evidence.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Or to put it another way how is your belief that Jesus was resurrected any more demonstrated or believable than a Muslim's faith that Mohammad was visited by an angel? I appreciate it is to you, but can you demonstrate this to someone who doesn't believe either?
    The strongest evidence for this is the dedication of His disciples. Disciples who spent three years with Him who would have been able to discern early on whether He was genuine or not given that many charlatans claiming divinity abounded in their day so they would have been on the lookout. Disciples who would have been totally convinced of His charlatanism when He was crucified on the cross, a death which meant that the victim was accursed of God in their own scriptures. A person publicly condemned for His blasphemy for all the Jews to see and yet within weeks they all started proclaiming Him to be the Son of God in full public view and continued to do so until they met with their own hideous and ignominious ends because they simply would not recant on their testimony of Him. Human nature being as it is I fail to see how one person would go through with this even for someone they thought was a good man but 11 men with families, careers, and a religion which they must have held dear to their hearts seeing that they were awaiting a Messiah anyway. To undergo the horrific deaths that they endured for someone that would have known was a fraud considering the time they spent with Him and witnessing His death to now preach not only that He rose but that He was truly the Son of God. Despite what you think wick people just do not do that, put some flesh and blood on these people. If they were liars then they must have made up the whole thing. But if they made up the whole thing then why would they die for it knowing it was a lie? And if they were simply deluded then why didn’t someone just show them the body of Jesus and quash this movement at the nub? Although I can’t prove to you that Jesus rose from the dead, logical deduction points to no other explanation when you consider all the facts.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    That isn't a particularly good way of doing it in my opinion, since if you start from the supernatural claims of any religion and work backwards you will believe in the religion (I start at the appearance of the angel to Mohammad and then work my way backwards)
    Well no, when I said I start with the resurrection and work back it was on the question of whether one can believe the other parts of the story or not. If I can believe in the resurrection, then the rest is easy. If I can believe that someone who made the claims that Jesus made including the claim that He would rise on the third day and there is no other explanation of the facts that anyone can find which explain them better, then I see not better evidence of God having interfered with human history than this. If this cannot be construed as a good indication of God’s intrusion into history then I don’ know what can be.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok well lets look at what you said here

    I get your point, if Christianity is true then what about the positive affect that the Muslim's religion has on people etc? For one Muslims, don't claim to have a personal relation ship with God by simply trusting in Him.

    What do you think it means that Muslim's don't claim to have a personal relationship with God by simply trusting in Him (I think they do but for the sake of argument lets say they don't)
    Well they don’t. Their relationship with Allah is based on their good works. Unless they do these good works then Allah will not accept them. Christianity on the other hand is a relationship with a person. Our coming to God is not based on our performance or good works; it is based on what Christ did on the cross. All that is required of us now in order to have communion and relationship with God is that we trust this atoning work of Christ and trust Him with our lives daily. That is what faith is.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    How does that differentiate the positive effect on their lives from the positive effect Christianity has on a Christian's life?
    The positive effect that the Christian life has on the Christian comes from the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, a gift God has promised to those who live by faith in Jesus. Muslims have good legal standing with Allah if the live up to the standards of Islam, if they don’t then they are not considered Muslim. They do not claim to have the infusion of the Holy Spirit hence the positive effects in their lives are merely grafted on from the outside by performing certain deeds rather than being generated from within by the spring of God’s Spirit from the heart.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you accept that a fake religion, a placebo religion as it were, can have the same positive effect on someone's life, and thus this cannot be taken as justification that the religion is true?
    Yes. Heck I even believe that there are many ideologies that have no supernatural claims at all which if followed to the letter can have a positive effect on an individual, Confucianism or Buddhism for instance, but I don’t believe that they can bring the sense of peace and forgiveness of sins that Christianity - lived right i.e. by simple faith in God - can bring. Even atheism can be a positive force for an individual. I would even go so far as to say that atheism is the only way to go in the absence of a truly supernatural religion in the world. If I found out tomorrow that Christianity was in fact false then I would embrace atheism as my default position and take other religions with a pinch of salt. None of them can hold a candle to Christianity, as most of them do not have as their pivotal force an equally historically corroborated and charismatic figure like Jesus. If Christianity is not in fact true, then it is not only not a force for good as it would be delusional, but it is the biggest waste of time ever in the history of the world and the apostle Paul would be right when he says that if Christ is not risen then our faith is vain and that we should be pitied above all men for having believed in such a thing.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Or do you think it can in the case of Christianity as Christianity could not have a positive effect unless it was true, where as other religions could.
    I don’t believe that Christianity could even exist unless it were true. It is the most enigmatical doctrine. If bears no resemblance to any other religion. It is totally centered on just one Person, who - as has been pointed out above - actually lived even by non Christian sources. And His whole ministry revolved around His claims, and when one reads His words they are self authenticating in nature. Not only does He say things which any normal person would be committed to an insane asylum for but He implies that you’d be nuts to question what He says. He talked about Heaven like it was is home town, He claims to have seen Satan fall like lightening from heaven and that He was older than Abraham who live nearly 2000 years before He did. These are the claims of a mad man or a liar if they are not true, hence why I don’t believe that Christianity could have gotten off the ground once this lunatic was crucified. Think about it, as one of His earthly disciples, even if you were unconvinced about Jesus in His earthly ministry, would His crucifixion and the absence of any resurrection appearances make a believer out of you to the extent that you would die a most horrific death with a smile on your face? The only plausible explanation is that He did in fact rise from that grave, when I hear a better explanation of the facts I will become an atheist – I promise.


  • #265
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The strongest evidence for this is the dedication of His disciples. Disciples who spent three years with Him who would have been able to discern early on whether He was genuine or not given that many charlatans claiming divinity abounded in their day so they would have been on the lookout. Disciples who would have been totally convinced of His charlatanism when He was crucified on the cross, a death which meant that the victim was accursed of God in their own scriptures. A person publicly condemned for His blasphemy for all the Jews to see and yet within weeks they all started proclaiming Him to be the Son of God in full public view and continued to do so until they met with their own hideous and ignominious ends because they simply would not recant on their testimony of Him. Human nature being as it is I fail to see how one person would go through with this even for someone they thought was a good man but 11 men with families, careers, and a religion which they must have held dear to their hearts seeing that they were awaiting a Messiah anyway. To undergo the horrific deaths that they endured for someone that would have known was a fraud considering the time they spent with Him and witnessing His death to now preach not only that He rose but that He was truly the Son of God. Despite what you think wick people just do not do that, put some flesh and blood on these people. If they were liars then they must have made up the whole thing. But if they made up the whole thing then why would they die for it knowing it was a lie? And if they were simply deluded then why didn’t someone just show them the body of Jesus and quash this movement at the nub? Although I can’t prove to you that Jesus rose from the dead, logical deduction points to no other explanation when you consider all the facts.

    Pop into the creationism thread any day of the week to see that people have an incredible ability to believe what they want to believe. It doesn't seem intuitive but that type of thinking happens all too frequently. I had the displeasure of talking to people like that during the debates on the Lisbon treaty who, for example, clung to the nonsense idea that the words "the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon" were irrelevant because a judge could possibly maybe interpret them to mean something other than that and they also claimed that the decision won't enter into force until 2011. No amount of pointing out the blatantly obvious to these people ever did any good because their belief was never based on rationality to begin with.

    Take a look at true believer syndrome for some more information and examples of people who, for example, believed that someone was psychic even when they were explicitly told before the experiment that he wasn't. People often believe what they want to believe in the face of unambiguous and unequivocal evidence to the contrary, even to the point of killing or dying for those beliefs. When someone is emotionally connected to an idea or a person, evidence and rationality no longer matter


    edit:One example
    A study done by psychologists Barry Singer and Victor Benassi at California State University at Long Beach illustrates the will to believe in psychic powers in the face of contrary evidence. They brought in a performing magician, Craig Reynolds, to do some tricks for four introductory psychology classes. Two of the classes were not told that he was a magician who would perform some amateur magic tricks. They were told that he was a graduate student who claimed to have psychic powers. In those classes, the psychology instructor explicitly stated that he didn't believe that the graduate student or anyone else has psychic abilities. In the other two classes the students were told that the magician was a magician. Singer and Benassi reported that about two-thirds of the students in both groups believed Craig was psychic. The researchers were surprised to find no significant difference between the "magic" and "psychic" classes. They then made the same presentation to two more classes who were explicitly told that Craig had no psychic abilities and that he was going to do some tricks for them whereby he pretends to read minds and demonstrate psychic powers. Nevertheless, more than half the students believed Craig was psychic after seeing his act.
    Strange but true. People are weird. The bottom line is that people throughout history have demonstrated an ability to believe the most ludicrous things (religious and non-religious) with no rational justification and fight to the death for these beliefs because they have an emotional connection to them. This is a well established aspect of human nature. No one has ever demonstrated an ability to turn water into wine, walk on water, raise from the dead or perform any such feat, not once in recorded history, but people have demonstrated an ability to firmly believe someone has done those things innumerable times. Your denial of the dozens of more plausible explanations for the resurrection story and insistence that breaking the laws of nature is the most plausible explanation is a prime example of it as a matter of fact. When dealing with flawed human perception, breaking the laws of nature is never the most plausible explanation.


  • #266
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Mohammad may have been visited by an angel and given a specific message. The thing is though, his message contradicts the Christian message which means that one (at least) of those messages is wrong. Now maybe both are wrong but both can not be right.

    Well that is sort of the point. I assume you believe Christianity is right, and thus Islam is wrong.

    So how can a religion that is wrong produce such a change in it's believers. You say it can't. I would disagree.

    Even more so than Christianity Islam is famed for it's transformations, its claimed ability to turn a person on a wayward path around to a path of self sacrifice, disciple, morality and honour.

    If we are assessing the truth of a religion based on the transformation it can produce in those who subscribe to it I would see Islam as having a much better case for it than Christianity.

    Yet we both think Islam is based on a fabrication. That to me (and I would hope to you) should demonstrate that a religious doctrine can produce fundamental and dramatic changes in a persons life style without being true, so long as the person themselves believes it is true and so long as the religion fits in with a fundamental human instinct for proper and good behaviour and life style.

    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The reason Christianity has more going for it is that there are sources out side of the New Testament (Jewish and Roman) which attest that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person who actually lived, who was crucified under the Judean governorship of Pontius Pilate and who was believed in as a God by His followers even years after his execution. These secular sources are totally independent of the New Testament accounts and yet they gel quite nicely with the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry recorded in the New Testament.

    I'm not sure what you think that demonstrates. Are you claiming that Mohammed didn't exist? Or L Ron Hubbard?

    Leaving aside the dispute about how far the non-Christian accounts of Jesus go (the only really concrete accounts acknowledge that early Christians existed, which I don't think anyone doubts) I'm not following why it is important to the truth of Christianity that there was actually a Jesus, or that people actually followed him. In the vast majority of religions and cults there is actually a leader. My rejection of Mohammad's vision in the cave is not based on the idea that Mohammad didn't exist, it is based on the idea that there are a lot more plausible explanations for why a man might believe he has seen an angel in a cave.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You won't find such corroboration for Mohammad who was alone when the angel visited him, there are no other eye witnesses to this event unlike the events described in the New Testament.

    Well all of Mecca witnessed Mohammad split the Moon in half. Sort of difficult to do with out divine ability. Unless you want to claim he didn't actually split the moon in half, just got people to believe he did ...
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Despite what you think wick people just do not do that, put some flesh and blood on these people.

    Actually they do just do that Soul Winner, that is the whole point.

    Your central argument, that the disciple's behaviour cannot be explained unless Jesus was who he said he was, simply does not stand up to even the most basic once over when you look at what other cult followers have done (Jonestown members were with Jim Jones for 20 years before they killed themselves on his command)

    History is littered with believers who have done the most bizarre and crazy things in the name of a belief that is in all likihood not true.

    This is what I mean when I say you need to look at other religions, look at how others behave in other religions.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Although I can’t prove to you that Jesus rose from the dead, logical deduction points to no other explanation when you consider all the facts.

    Only if you selectively choose to take a skewed view of what human beings are capable of believing in.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Well they don’t. Their relationship with Allah is based on their good works. Unless they do these good works then Allah will not accept them. Christianity on the other hand is a relationship with a person.
    That is not a particularly accurate description of Islam Soul Winner, as far as I'm aware.

    From an Islamic website

    Some people assert that the Islamic God is a very impersonal God with whom a believer never gets to develop a close relationship. There is no truth whatever in this assertion.

    In Islam a believer's relationship with God begins with a consciousness of God who is always present. It starts with remembrance of Him (zikr); it is inculcated and maintained by acts of devotion such as the regular daily prayers (salah), pilgrimage to Makka, fasting and reciting on rosary the praises of God (tasbih). When a person becomes conscious of His ever-presence, he turns for His support and help whenever he needs some, which is often. He is fully assured that God hears him when he calls upon Him. [It is like a constant and direct connection between the self and the Reality].

    As far as I know the acts of devotion are not acts to buy favour with, or love from, God, they are acts that a Muslim is suppose to happy embrace as part of their relationship with God, to live devoted to God, as a Christian is suppose to happily embrace God's commandments as part of his relationship with Jesus, not simply because he is told to and fears punishment.

    Not that this has anything to do with whether it is true or not, but I can't help feel that a lot of your argument for the truth of Christianity over other religions is simply your ignorance of other religions.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    None of them can hold a candle to Christianity, as most of them do not have as their pivotal force an equally historically corroborated and charismatic figure like Jesus.

    That is a totally subjective claim. Given that you have never been a Muslim how could you possible know?

    Or to put it another way, of course you would say that you are a Christian. Ask a Muslim and they will say that no religion has such a charismatic figure like Mohammad. Or Buddah. Or L. Ron.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I don’t believe that Christianity could even exist unless it were true. It is the most enigmatical doctrine. If bears no resemblance to any other religion.

    Nonsense Soul Winner, it bares resemblance to most other religions. Yes the details are different, but then Scientology is the only religion to claim Xenu put us all under volcanos.

    The fundamentals of the message in most religions is the same and it appeals to basic human instincts.
    • There is a creator force in the universe that is human like in its agency. Call him Supernatural deity(ies) X
    • There is something wrong with humans because of Supernatural explanation Y (related to Supernatural deity X)
    • There is a way to fix this by embracing Supernatural deity Y or knowledge given by him.
    • This will improve our lives.

    Show me a religion that doesn't fit this basic template. Christianity does. Islam does. Buddahism does (though replace deity with simply force). Scientology does. Most religions do.

    The details are unimportant. If you were born in Mecca Islam would make perfect sense to you because it also fits this template. If you were born in Tom Cruises house Scientology would fit this template.

    All humans feel their is something fundamentally broken with humanity. We find this scary and we search for answers to why this is, answers that provide us with comfort and the assurance that we can do something about it. We turn to religion because we wish to regain a sense of direction and control over this while also explaining it in terms we can easily understand.

    It doesn't really matter what religion does this. In fact if you don't produce a religion humans left to their own devices will invent their own.

    The only think that actually explains any of this is Evolutionary Psychology.


  • #267
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well that is sort of the point. I assume you believe Christianity is right, and thus Islam is wrong.

    So how can a religion that is wrong produce such a change in it's believers. You say it can't. I would disagree.

    The difference is that Mohammad alone originated Islam claiming that an Angel came to him and gave him the Koran. Now he didn't have to die for that claim, whereas Jesus did die for His claims and so did His disciples die for claiming that Jesus was the Son of God and to have witnessed His earthly ministry miracles and postmortem appearances of Him alive after His death. Mohammad might have had a genuine experience and the Koran is probably right that Jesus was only a great prophet but not what He or His disciples claimed Him to be. But even if the Koran is correct then how could Jesus even be a great prophet? He was a nut job if He wasn't who He claimed to be, which means that even if the Koran was right about Jesus then it would still be a wrong religion, because a nut job like Jesus should never be regarded as a great prophet

    Anyway getting back to the point of whether Jesus' disciples would have died for their beliefs like others have done. For one Jesus' disciples where actual eyewitnesses to what Jesus said and did and they claimed to have seen Him alive again. They were not preached to that this happened and became convinced because of someone else's testimony. They themselves claimed to have witnessed these things and willingly died for that testimony. If what they preached was in fact false then they died a pointless and hideous death for a lie that they knew was a lie. It boggles my mind that you could read the words in the New Testament and still turn around and say that that is a more plausible explanation than the explanation of what they preached might actually have been true. The followers of other religions will also die for what they believe in but that is the point, THEY BELIEVE IN IT TO BE TRUE. You're expecting me to believe that the disciples of Jesus DIDN'T believe in it and willingly died anyway. I'm sorry Wicknight but I do not by that bull. And if you concede that OK they did believe in it, then you must explain how they came to believe in it.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Even more so than Christianity Islam is famed for it's transformations, its claimed ability to turn a person on a wayward path around to a path of self sacrifice, disciple, morality and honour.

    Again you are missing my whole point. I don't dispute that even false religions (if that's what they are) can transform peoples lives but it is not because they know it's false, it is because they think its true. If the disciples genuinely believed in what they preached, then it is down to two things. They were deluded or it was true. If they were deluded then Christianity would never have gotten off the ground. Which means that it is true. Or they were lying about everything, which as pointed out earlier, there is no evidence for this in the record. You cannot find any evidence that they wee lying and even if they were lying then they would have had as much character as a thief and a robber, so why would these people who have no honor for truth willingly happily die for their lies? Show me the evidence in their writings or anywhere else for that matter that they even begin to come off as people like that. You won't find any.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If we are assessing the truth of a religion based on the transformation it can produce in those who subscribe to it I would see Islam as having a much better case for it than Christianity.

    You are the master at turning the tables Wick but I'm not going to let you away with it. I am not arguing that a false religion cannot transform someone as long as they believe in it. How do you explain the transformation in Jesus disciples, which most people agree was cataclysmic in nature for the better after the reports of the resurrection, than what is portrayed of them in the Gospel accounts before His crucifixion? Before the crucifixion they were cowardly, doubtful, callers of fire from heaven on everyone and wanters of the best seats in heaven, whereas after the resurrection they become humble, faithful, loving and caring. Now I can understand how this might happen if they truly believed in Jesus but how could they have come to truly believe in Jesus when He was sealed in a tomb with nail holes in His hands and feet after been publicly condemned as a blasphemer of God in front of their own people? How did they develop this true belief that Jesus was the Son of God and had rose from the dead after His ignominious death on a Roman cross?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yet we both think Islam is based on a fabrication. That to me (and I would hope to you) should demonstrate that a religious doctrine can produce fundamental and dramatic changes in a persons life style without being true, so long as the person themselves believes it is true and so long as the religion fits in with a fundamental human instinct for proper and good behaviour and life style.

    Yes but how could Christianity have developed from its humiliating starting point of crucified as a blasphemer leader to Son of God who rose from the dead if it was all based on a fabrication? Surely such a movement would have been well stifled early on, especially when it was first preached in the very same city that He was crucified. Not Galilee and not Rome but Jerusalem itself. If they were going to make up a lie surely they wouldn't have had the brass neck to start preaching it there of all places.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you think that demonstrates. Are you claiming that Mohammed didn't exist? Or L Ron Hubbard?

    Absolutely not. I believe Mohammad existed and was probably visited by an angel but even if that is so, it doesn't follow that the religion that sprouted from that encounter is true, it could have been a fallen angel which appeared to him, but be that as it may, Islam cannot have any basis in truth because their claim that Jesus was a great prophet is stupid because of the claims He made Himself as recorded by the Gospel writers.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Leaving aside the dispute about how far the non-Christian accounts of Jesus go (the only really concrete accounts acknowledge that early Christians existed, which I don't think anyone doubts) I'm not following why it is important to the truth of Christianity that there was actually a Jesus, or that people actually followed him.

    When you believe that a certain person is the Son of God then it is very important to know as best you can that that person actually existed in history. Thankfully we don't have to rely solely on the New Testament accounts for this, there is extra biblical source which also attest to this fact.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    In the vast majority of religions and cults there is actually a leader. My rejection of Mohammad's vision in the cave is not based on the idea that Mohammad didn't exist, it is based on the idea that there are a lot more plausible explanations for why a man might believe he has seen an angel in a cave.

    That's because your a naturalist and will accept any natural expansion no matter how ridiculous over any supernatural explanation. As a believer in the supernatural myself both positive and negative, and given the opposition of the enemy of God and Jesus I wouldn't be surprised that he would spawn as many false religions as He can in order to muddy the waters so that he can turn as many people off the the whole subject of God as he can. He doesn't care how he stops you from trusting in God as along as He does it. I'm not a believer in throwing the baby out with the bath water and I keep my mind open until it can be categorically proven and explained to me in natural terms how a religion like Christianity can get off the ground in a climate of insurmountable hatred for the movement at its time of inception, when eveyone wanted to quash it, the only explanation of its growth is that it is true.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well all of Mecca witnessed Mohammad split the Moon in half. Sort of difficult to do with out divine ability. Unless you want to claim he didn't actually split the moon in half, just got people to believe he did ...

    Well it is pretty obvious he didn't split the moon unless he also put it back together again because when I look out my window at night I see a moon which looks prety much intact. Is it claimed that he put it back together again? Or are you sure that his moon splitting wasn't meant metaphorically?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Actually they do just do that Soul Winner, that is the whole point.

    Your central argument, that the disciple's behaviour cannot be explained unless Jesus was who he said he was, simply does not stand up to even the most basic once over when you look at what other cult followers have done (Jonestown members were with Jim Jones for 20 years before they killed themselves on his command)

    FacePalm-2-1.jpg

    How many times do I have to point out the differences between Jesus' disciples and Jim Jones' followers? Jim Jones's followers were ordered to poison themselves at gun point and didn't have the choice of recanting or running away. On the other hand Jesus' disciples died when all they had to do to get out of it was to recant on their testimony and denounce their Lord. Plus Jim Jones' followers believed in Jim Jones but Jesus disciples didn't believe in Jesus, how could they He was either a nut or a liar or both if He wasn't who they professed He was. Or did they believe in Him? And if so how could such a belief in a dead humiliated so called Messiah develop into Son of God worship in a cultural milieu that was 1st century Judaism under Roman authority? When Jews turned from worshiping their God they usually turned to pagan religions and gods that were already there, they rarely if ever went around making up religions of their own, let alone religions like Christianity, which was not only a departure from their Jewish religion but which went against it using their own scriptures as a basis for the New Way.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    History is littered with believers who have done the most bizarre and crazy things in the name of a belief that is in all likihood not true.

    This is what I mean when I say you need to look at other religions, look at how others behave in other religions.

    As was said several times already, I don't hold to the beleif that false relgions cannot change someone for the better as long as they believe that the religion is in fact true, but how can you explain the disciples of Jesus believing as true that Jesus whom they seen crucified with their own eyes was actually the Son of God and raised from the dead if in fact He wasn't and it could be easily demonstrated as such at that time?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is not a particularly accurate description of Islam Soul Winner, as far as I'm aware.

    From an Islamic website

    Some people assert that the Islamic God is a very impersonal God with whom a believer never gets to develop a close relationship. There is no truth whatever in this assertion.

    In Islam a believer's relationship with God begins with a consciousness of God who is always present. It starts with remembrance of Him (zikr); it is inculcated and maintained by acts of devotion such as the regular daily prayers (salah), pilgrimage to Makka, fasting and reciting on rosary the praises of God (tasbih). When a person becomes conscious of His ever-presence, he turns for His support and help whenever he needs some, which is often. He is fully assured that God hears him when he calls upon Him. [It is like a constant and direct connection between the self and the Reality].

    As far as I know the acts of devotion are not acts to buy favour with, or love from, God, they are acts that a Muslim is suppose to happy embrace as part of their relationship with God, to live devoted to God, as a Christian is suppose to happily embrace God's commandments as part of his relationship with Jesus, not simply because he is told to and fears punishment.

    From Islamworld.net

    "
    If anyone has a real desire to be a Muslim and has full conviction and strong belief that Islam is the true religion ordained by Allah for all human-beings, then, one should pronounce the "Shahada", the testimony of faith, without further delay. The Holy Qur'an is explicit on this regard as Allah states:

    "The Religion in the sight of Allah is Islam." (Qur'an 3:19)

    In another verse of the Holy Qur'an, Allah states:

    "If unyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to Allah), Never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (their selves in the hell fire)."(Qur'an 3:85)

    In addition, Islam is the only religion prevailing over all other religions.

    Allah states in the Holy Qur'an:

    "To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety:..." (Qur'an 5:48)
    Mohammad, the Prophet of Allah (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him), said:

    "The superstructure of Islam is raised on five (pillars): testifying that there is no God (none truely to be worshiped) but Allah, and that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah, performing the prayer, paying the Zakah (poor-due), fasting the month of Ramadan, and performing Hadj".

    The Shahada can be declared as follows:

    [SIZE=-1]"ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH"[/SIZE].

    What is the meaning of worship? It simply means rendering sincere service, showing reverence for Allah. In a deeper shade of meaning, it implies total submission and complete obedience to Allah's commandments both in utterances and actions of man whether explicit or implicit.


    Worship fall into two categories:
    1. Visible (manifest or outward)
    2. Invisible (concealed or inward)
    Visible worship includes acts such as uttering the two parts of the "Shahada", performing prayers, giving Zakah (the poor-due), recitation of the Holy Qur'an, supplication, adoring Allah by praising Him, purifying our bodies before prayers, etc.

    This type of worship is associated with movement of the parts of the human body.

    Invisible worship is to believe in Allah, in the Day of Judgement (in the Hereafter), in the Angels, in the Books of Allah, in the Prophets of Allah, in the Divine Decree of destiny (that good and bad are determined by Allah alone).

    This type of worship does not involve movement of parts of the body but it surely has bearing on one's heart which subsequently affects one's way of life.

    It should be borne in mind that any worship not dedicated to Allah alone will be rejected as one form of polytheism and this causes apostasy from the Islamic fold.

    The next step for a newly revert to Islam is to purify himself by taking a complete bath. He should then resolve to comply with the principles and rules of Islam in their entirety. He should disown all forms of polytheism and false beliefs. He should reject evil and be righteous. Such rejection of evil and being righteous is one of the equisites of the motto of Islam - that is, Laa Ilaha Illallah.

    Allah states in the Holy Qur'an:

    "... whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy Hand-hold, that never breaks..." (Qur'an 2:256).

    This is the firmest anchor of belief which materialise the meaning of [SIZE=-1]"AL WALA"[/SIZE] and [SIZE=-1]"AL BARA"[/SIZE]. It means that a Muslim should love and be loyal to his Muslim brothers. He should, as a practice, dissociate himself completely from the unbelievers and refuse to be influenced by them, both in worldly and religious matters."

    More here

    Christianity says that "By grace we are saved through faith and that NOT OF OURSELVES, NOT OF WORKS lest ANY MAN should boast."

    Anyway like I said already, if you truly believe in Islam as being the one true religion and only way to God and you see God as the ultimate good in the universe then it is most likely that Islam will be a force for good in your life. My question is, how did Jesus disciples come to believe this about Jesus?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not that this has anything to do with whether it is true or not, but I can't help feel that a lot of your argument for the truth of Christianity over other religions is simply your ignorance of other religions.

    I have a fix for that. Just read my posts properly next time.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is a totally subjective claim. Given that you have never been a Muslim how could you possible know?

    Well like you I can have a good old guess can't I?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Or to put it another way, of course you would say that you are a Christian. Ask a Muslim and they will say that no religion has such a charismatic figure like Mohammad. Or Buddah. Or L. Ron.

    They never made the claims about THEMSELVES that Jesus made about HIMSELF. That's what sets Jesus apart from all the other. They never made such claims about themselves so it is OK to respect them as sane founders of religion. Not so Jesus, He doesn't leave that option open to us, we have to either accept Him as a nut or a fraud or what He claimed to be, claims which got Him crucified.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Nonsense Soul Winner, it bares resemblance to most other religions. Yes the details are different, but then Scientology is the only religion to claim Xenu put us all under volcanos.



    The fundamentals of the message in most religions is the same and it appeals to basic human instincts.
    • There is a creator force in the universe that is human like in its agency. Call him Supernatural deity(ies) X
    • There is something wrong with humans because of Supernatural explanation Y (related to Supernatural deity X)
    • There is a way to fix this by embracing Supernatural deity Y or knowledge given by him.
    • This will improve our lives.
    Show me a religion that doesn't fit this basic template. Christianity does. Islam does. Buddahism does (though replace deity with simply force). Scientology does. Most religions do.

    Confucianism
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The details are unimportant. If you were born in Mecca Islam would make perfect sense to you because it also fits this template. If you were born in Tom Cruises house Scientology would fit this template.

    I think I covered this already.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    All humans feel their is something fundamentally broken with humanity. We find this scary and we search for answers to why this is, answers that provide us with comfort and the assurance that we can do something about it. We turn to religion because we wish to regain a sense of direction and control over this while also explaining it in terms we can easily understand.

    It doesn't really matter what religion does this. In fact if you don't produce a religion humans left to their own devices will invent their own.

    The only think that actually explains any of this is Evolutionary Psychology.

    Can Evolutionary Psychology explain why Jesus thought that He was before Abraham? I think if an Evolutionary Psychologist was assessing Jesus today they would quickly deduce that He was either mad or a fraud. Strange that His disciples believe so strongly in Him when they had every predisposition to the contrary, and not only believe in Him but to the point of an horrific and lonely death, when all they had to do to avoid it was to denounce this fraud and go back to their families and lives and careers. This behavior is inexplicable under Evolutionary Psychology.


  • #268
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Can Evolutionary Psychology explain why Jesus thought that He was before Abraham? I think if an Evolutionary Psychologist was assessing Jesus today they would quickly deduce that He was either mad or a fraud. Strange that His disciples believe so strongly in Him when they had every predisposition to the contrary, and not only believe in Him but to the point of an horrific and lonely death, when all they had to do to avoid it was to denounce this fraud and go back to their families and lives and careers. This behavior is inexplicable under Evolutionary Psychology.

    Can you explain why the majority of a class of psychology students believed someone to be psychic even when they were explicitly told before he did his act that he wasn't and that it was all a trick?


  • #269
    chozometroid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Can you explain why the majority of a class of psychology students believed someone to be psychic even when they were explicitly told before he did his act that he wasn't and that it was all a trick?
    Because they believed the ones telling them it was a trick were mistaken or just setting the stage, and then they could not spot the method behind the magician's act.


  • #270
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    chozometroid wrote: »
    Because they believed the ones telling them it was a trick were mistaken or just setting the stage, and then they could not spot the method behind the magician's act.

    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Such things happen every single day, it's a big flaw in human reasoning. Another example is a psychic whose name I can't remember who was proven to have microphones in the stands listening to people so he could pretend to know things and when it came out his popularity wasn't even dented. People believe what they want to believe and we all recognise it.....except when it's a 2000 year old story about a guy raising from the dead and suddenly all these things are impossible


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Can you explain why the majority of a class of psychology students believed someone to be psychic even when they were explicitly told before he did his act that he wasn't and that it was all a trick?

    For all they know the people saying that he wasn't a psychic could have been fibbing. Why should they believe them? If the guy comes out and demonstrates that he has psychic abilities then why shouldn't they believe it? But if he shows them how he did his trick and showed them how they could also do it and they are still convinced that he is not a psychic then OK we have a problem. I’m not sure what you could say to these people to convince them. But it is different when we apply this to Jesus or the disciples of Jesus. Where is it shown or written down that they were ever presented with evidence that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead? All anyone had to do at that time in order to shut them up was to go to His tomb and produce His body. There is no account anywhere in recorded history that anyone ever showed the disciples Jesus' body in order to shut up their preaching that he was raised from the dead. Jesus never owned up to not being who He claimed to be like the pyschic. That is the difference between the guys in the experiment above and the Jesus' disciples. They didn't have the luxury of Jesus slapping them on the back and telling them it was all a big fib, nor where they presented with any evidence that Jesus was still dead and lying in the tomb.

    So we are still left with questions:

    Why didn't the authorities show them that Jesus’ body still lay in the tomb?

    Because it was gone that's why. Now, how was it gone?

    Three theories

    • The Disciples stole it
    • The Jews stole it
    • The Romans stole it

    If the disciples stole it then they were liars and didn't truly believe that Jesus rose form the dead, and died hideous deaths in order to preserve this lie that they knew was a lie, a lie they knew wouldn't curry any favor from the God of their forefathers whom they claimed to represent. This is the only plausible explanation if the He didn’t actually raise form the dead. Only people who are closed to the possibility that God exists and that He intrudes into human history would accept this as the most likely explanation. And if it can be demonstrated that God doesn’t exist then this would be my default position too. The resurrection story hinges only on one other presupposition, and that is that God exists. Because the resurrection reports in the New Testament never claim that Jesus simply rose naturally from the dead and crawled out licking His wounds, no, they claim that God raised Jesus from the dead in power according to their own scriptures, that which was written about Him centuries before.

    If the Jews stole the body then they would have produced it in a New York minute in order to put a stop to the preaching. Josephus would have recorded this and the Romans historians would have recorded this and yet all they have to say about this new movement was that the followers of Jesus believed He was a God or the Son of a God. If it had been publically demonstrated to these disciples that Jesus’ body still lay in the tomb then they would have recorded it somewhere in their writings. Josephus thought it note worthy to record the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus so he would have recorded this public display surely? But even if it wasn’t officially recorded, there is not even a local tradition or even one single legend found anywhere that this public display ever took place which points squarely to the fact that it didn’t actually take place. Which begs the question. Why didn’t it take place? Because the body was gone!

    Same thing for the Romans. They executed Jesus for treason and feared that the people were going to make Him King. There is no way that they would have just thrown his body to the dogs because they knew that potential followers just might start preaching that He rose from the dead. The Jews which had the clout to get him crucified in the first place would have also had the clout to make sure that His tomb was sealed and guarded because they knew that Jesus predicated that He would raise again on the third day. The reason they wanted the tomb sealed and guarded wasn't because they believed that this just might happen but rather that they thought the disciple might steal the body to make it look like it happened. The earliest Jewish polemic regarding the empty tomb states that the disciples stole the body. Notice that they do not say that the tomb wasn't empty? So how did a sealed and guarded tomb become empty if neither the Disciples, the Jews or the Romans stole the body? They were the only parities with the vested interest in stealing the body in the first place unless you can think of another one. And even if you can explain the empty tomb with the explanation that robbers stole the body for whatever reason then the disciples were still liars because they not only preached that he was raised and that the tomb was empty but that He was seen alive and vital for up to forty days hence and then He ascended into heaven.

    These are the issues were are faced with when it comes to Jesus’ disciples. It is inexplicable how these men came to truly believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that he rose form the dead and that He ascended into heaven unless it actually happened. And if it didn’t actually happen then yes I am willing to believe that they made it all up. But if we do a bit more probing into their accounts of Jesus then what we are faced with does not permit that they were in fact lying about it.

    For instance they adhere to facts that are embarrassing for the disciples. They are portrayed as cowards who denied their Lord. They also give clues to authenticity in their reporting which goes unnoticed by most people when they read the accounts. Things like one gospel saying that Phillip was from Bethsaida, and other saying that when Jesus was performing one of the miracles of feeding the five thousand that he asked Phillip where to buy food, and it is yet another gospel account which reveals that Bethsaida was in the area of where the miracle took place. Put them altogether and it makes sense. Phillip was the right person to ask because you were in an area that he knew if anyone knew where to buy food then it would be him. Pretty consistant reporting for liars only out to save face or for whatever reasson don't you think?

    These gospels were written by people at different places and at times when they weren’t even sure if the other disciples where still alive. You don’t find that kind attention to detail in reporting in liars who are only out to save face because of the embarrassing situation that they found themselves after following a man for three years whom they believe was the Messiah. If all they were out to do was to save face for the moment then they did not know that their every word would be scrutinize by us 2000 years later and yet when we do scrutinize we find this incredible attention to detail in their reports. In short they just don’t come off as if they are lying at all, they just sound like honest reporters who are simply reporting events as they experienced them.

    More internal evidence that they were not lying lies in the fact of the consistencies in the reports of all the personality traits of the disciples. All the records are consistent with the regards to the various traits that each disciple possessed. Peter is always unstable, Thomas is always the doubter and son on. But this all changes after the resurrection. They all have cataclysmic changes for the better after the resurrection. Now a lie will change a person but seldom for the better, all these disciples were changed for the better. Peter became as steady as a rock from being probably the most unstable of the disciples. Thomas becomes an unwavering man of faith who pierced the Himalayas to bring the Gospel to India. James and John change form having a reputation as sons of thunder who called fire from heaven down on everybody to Disciples of love. Making up a big lie in order to save face does not produce these traits, and yet these traits both good and bad are interwoven with consistency by all the reporters. You don’t get that kind of intricacy and accuracy of reporting in false accounts of people only out to cause trouble. Because that is all these disciples were if they were not telling the truth, trouble makers, bent on making people leave their beloved national Jewish religion in order to follow false Messiah whom they knew lay dead somewhere because they had stolen His body.

    Then there’s Mark who wrote primarily to gentiles (non Jews) who has Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man more times than the other gospels, which would have defeated his purpose to his readers because his readers were gentiles who did not know the Jewish eschatological significance of the phrase Son of Man. If Mark was just lying and only interested in making people believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then why does he have Jesus refer to Himself time and again as the Son of Man? It just doesn’t make sense for liar to do such a thing. Jesus referred to Himself as Son of man because he was addressing Jews when he was speaking who knew what that phrase Son of Man meant i.e. Messiah. But to a gentile the phrase Son of Man means exactly that, the son of a man not Son of God, and if all your out to do is convince people of that Jesus was the son of God then it seems pretty strange that Mark would have Jesus refer to Himself as Son of Man being a liar and all.

    Then there is the question of the women reporters. Another embarrassing detail that these liars left in. If all there out to do was convince people that Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead, then it would have been much better for them to say that it was Peter or John who discovered the empty tomb, not women. The only explanation as to why they have women reporting the empty tomb is that it was actually women who reported it. Their inclusion as the first discoverers of the empty is inexplicable unless that is exactly what happened, but if you are a liar then why adhere to this truth when you know it will damage your case? The word of a women in Jewish circles in those days wasn’t worth anything. They were not allowed to serve as valid witnesses to anything. And yet these lying disciples left the fact that it was they (the women) who discovered the empty tomb in the account. Why do that?

    Another reason to think that they were not lying is that none of them ever admit to having actually witnessed the resurrection itself. Why not? I mean if you are making up a lie - which means you don’t care about the truth - why not go the whole hog and have someone actually witness Jesus rising form the dead? And yet we don’t see this at all in their accounts, all we have are empty tomb reports.

    So if they truly believe all this stuff and happily gave their lives for it by suffering inhuman torturous deaths instead of recanting and weren’t presented with any evidence that what they believed in was in fact false, then what other explanation do we have except that it must be true? If all the internal evidence in their stories points to them being truthful reporters of what actually happened, not liars, then that means that they were not in fact lying, which means they were honestly reporting what they saw and experienced which means that He did actually rise and ascended with the promise to return one day to set this world right. That is why I too believe in the story and that is why I am Christian. If a strong enough argument can be presented to me that can refute all of the above then I’m all ears, but until one comes along and unless someone can prove me deranged I will consider myself quite rational to keep believing in it.


Advertisement