A confused atheist.

[chilehed]

That's not really the same thing though as there are accounts of beethoven and Rembrandt in newspaper articles and the views of competing contemporaries criticisizing their works.

The key for most of those you mention is that there're independent, objective sources rather than disciples or followers etc who have a vested interest in the success of the Christian message.

So you reject their testimony based solely on the fact that they are who they are? That's the ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Foolish]

He DID. Need Scripture? You see it in Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and throughout.

What? The love thy fellow man stuff, unless the are gay, adulterous, plant crops incorrectly or work on the sabbath etc. Etc.

Every Christian I've ever spoken to acknowledges that the acts of god described in the OT is a shift change to jesus' teachings.

 

[Foolish]

Well, first you say you want logic, now you say you don't understand.

I think you will find it is not logical to want to understand everything before you accept that it is true. What is logical is to make a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence, even if that evidence does not at present answer every question.

In other words, you are asking faith to do MORE than science. How illogical is that?

And I think if you read my above post you will see that faith is not just about what is written in the Bible. I have already said this, but perhaps it did not register, so it is worth saying again.

That suggestion is a bit like saying all evolutionary scientists are simply basing everything on the Origin of Species. They would - I hope - laugh at that, and say, well, maybe that is where we started when we were 14, but we have come a long way since then. Same for the Bible and the Chrisitian faith; it is the foundation for our faith, but it does not define it or encompass it or say all that there is to say.

Christianity is a living faith with a living God. It is not just about a book.

If I'm going to base my entire life on something, then you better believe I'm going to want to understand it fully.

Yes, the origins of species is the foundation upon which evolutionary biology is based, but I would add 2 things:

1 the origins was based on observable, contemporaneous observation by Darwin.

2 evolution is a testable theory and scientist are still today testing, questioning and experimenting to identify and explain weaknesses and inconsistencies in the theory and through that process have produced evidence that the theory, thus far, holds true.

Are you saying that Christians have produced/observed more evidence of the power of god and Jesus since the bible was written?

 

[Foolish]

Indeed so. Just as it is logical to conclude that you must have ancestors, so it is also logical to conclude that worldwide churches do not appear from nowhere, and must have a provenance.

I see no reason to doubt that Buddhism derives from the historical Buddha, or Islam from the historical Mohammed - or for that matter that the Iliad derives from the historical Homer, so why would you see reason to doubt that Chrisitianity derives from the historical Jesus? That makes no more sense than you having no ancestors.

Perhaps a little science as a metaphor; matter can be neither created nor destroyed save in the form of energy. Similarly, a worldwide faith cannot be created without energy, and that kind of energy cannot come from Joe Bloggs; it has to be a very rare kind of person. People set up their own little cults all the time. Most of them die and are forgotten; a few survive.

Why do you think that is? Because they are founded on people who do not exist? That is just plain daft.

I've mentioned before that I am inclined to believe that Jesus was a great philosopher and should be revered as such.

I just don't believe the magical side of things.

 

[Foolish]

So you reject their testimony based solely on the fact that they are who they are? That's the ad hominem fallacy.

There are a couple of reasons that I doubt the testimony.

Firstly, as pointed out previously, the accounts weren't written down for decades. It's difficult to maintain an accurate Verbal storyline for a few months let alone decades.

Secondly. I don't reject the accounts out of hand. I just don't think they're objective.

Combine these two things and you have a major issue in reliability of the accounts as they are most likely inaccurate records of biased testimonies.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Indeed so. Just as it is logical to conclude that you must have ancestors, so it is also logical to conclude that worldwide churches do not appear from nowhere, and must have a provenance.

I see no reason to doubt that Buddhism derives from the historical Buddha, or Islam from the historical Mohammed - or for that matter that the Iliad derives from the historical Homer, so why would you see reason to doubt that Chrisitianity derives from the historical Jesus? That makes no more sense than you having no ancestors.

Perhaps a little science as a metaphor; matter can be neither created nor destroyed save in the form of energy. Similarly, a worldwide faith cannot be created without energy, and that kind of energy cannot come from Joe Bloggs; it has to be a very rare kind of person. People set up their own little cults all the time. Most of them die and are forgotten; a few survive.

Why do you think that is? Because they are founded on people who do not exist? That is just plain daft.

Of course this doesn't save us from the very real and likely possibilities that like other historical figures, ancient literature on their lives and exploits is often embellished.

 

[socialisview]

God said you will do things more than him. and we serve him becuase he died for our sins and connects us back with god. He was the only being in this world that didnt cause wrong so he could give himself up as a pefect sacrifice to please Gods anger with man becuase man cause all evil to happen in this world.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

There are a couple of reasons that I doubt the testimony.

Firstly, as pointed out previously, the accounts weren't written down for decades. It's difficult to maintain an accurate Verbal storyline for a few months let alone decades.

Secondly. I don't reject the accounts out of hand. I just don't think they're objective.

Combine these two things and you have a major issue in reliability of the accounts as they are most likely inaccurate records of biased testimonies.

I would also mention that many historians can tell you that ancient world writers simply did not have a modern reporting. A certain amount of embellishment was expected. And this is long long before a significant portion of the world had at least a nominal mind set built on naturalism.

 

[razeontherock]

Are you saying that Christians have produced/observed more evidence of the power of god and Jesus since the bible was written?

Yes.

 

[socialisview]

yes it has in the kabballa that in the begging heaven was connected to the earth. where if you looked up heaven was right there. also before the flood its been record not only by bible references which kabballa and books outside the bible but also other religions that angels came down had relations with women and made giants and the legends we have today. science says that too that ancient history has shown to be more advance than we are today.

 

[socialisview]

since yes. and there will be more. the myans said everything goes back to one so heaven and earth will be reconnected. and also ask God and see for yourself. stop asking people and ask the right person. which is god. talk to him your self. he will give whatever you want. and if you dont believe me try it.

 

[socialisview]

1 Kings 3

Solomon Asks for Wisdom

1 Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter. He brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the temple of the LORD, and the wall around Jerusalem. 2 The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the LORD. 3 Solomon showed his love for the LORD by walking according to the instructions given him by his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places. 4 The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.”
6 Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.
7 “Now, LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”
10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” 15 Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.
He returned to Jerusalem, stood before the ark of the Lord’s covenant and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then he gave a feast for all his court.
A Wise Ruling

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, “Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. 18 The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us. 19 “During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21 The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”
22 The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”
But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.
23 The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”
24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
26 The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”
But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”
27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”
28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.



and you dont need sacrifice Jesus came down for that. just believe and in season you will recieve.

 

[chilehed]

There are a couple of reasons that I doubt the testimony.

Firstly, as pointed out previously, the accounts weren't written down for decades. It's difficult to maintain an accurate Verbal storyline for a few months let alone decades.

So then you're saying that you can't accurately recall the key elements of (for example) the most significant event that happened to you when you were in junior high school?

How about people who were in Dallas when Kennedy got shot. If one of them told you what he saw, you'd reject his testimony?

Have you ever spoken to a survivor of the Nazi death camps? I have - should I reject his testimony because it happened over 60 years ago?

Secondly. I don't reject the accounts out of hand. I just don't think they're objective.

The reason you've given for that is fallacious. It's the ad hominem argument.

 

[brinny]

Im an agnostic atheist but am really interested in religion, so I would apreciate any feedback on my musings.

From what I understand of Christianity, the central (not sole) principal of worshipping christ I that he sacrificed himself for us and our sins.

What I don't understand is that; many people have sacrificed themselves for greater causes in our history - why shouldn't we worship them?

They are not divine...kinda hard to explain...Jesus rose from the dead. He restored what none else could do, one's relationship with God.

Musing is a good thing. May your musings continue.

 

[socialisview]

ya it has there were books before the bible. and also thats why you get the spirit. he tells you every not man. man doesnt know anything but what thev seen. Gods been here since the beginning. he tells you all things. and also stories have been passed down for centuries in each culture that seem very similar to each other.

 

[Catherineanne]

If I'm going to base my entire life on something, then you better believe I'm going to want to understand it fully.

Have you ever flown in a plane?

Used a lift?

Driven a car?

Swam?

Lit a fire?

I do hope you understand all of these fully before using them; any one of them can kill you if you are not careful.

Or could it be that you have one standard for most things, but have raised the bar rather higher to faith, because you do not want to believe it? It certainly looks that way.

Yes, the origins of species is the foundation upon which evolutionary biology is based, but I would add 2 things:

1 the origins was based on observable, contemporaneous observation by Darwin.

2 evolution is a testable theory and scientist are still today testing, questioning and experimenting to identify and explain weaknesses and inconsistencies in the theory and through that process have produced evidence that the theory, thus far, holds true.

Are you saying that Christians have produced/observed more evidence of the power of god and Jesus since the bible was written?

I have no problem with evolution. I am not an expert, but I accept the findings of those who are; the Bible does not tell us to reject science.

Yes. If we had not had evidence since the Bible we would all have to be be off our rockers to still believe it. Do you honestly think we are all off our rockers?

Incontravertible, personal, first hand, day by day evidence; I for one would NOT be able to sustain faith without it.

It is like someone saying, look, gravity works; it is a force of attraction within nature; it is real; I am stuck to the ground; if I jump I fall down again. If I drop an apple, it goes to the ground; just look for yourself.

Then someone else says, I don't understand what you are saying, and until I understand gravity 100% I am going to say it is the air rejecting that which is not air; people are made up of earth, air, fire and water. Earth goes to earth, fire to fire, and water to water, so people fall to the ground, the same as water falls to the ground to find other water.

This theory is adequate, therefore, until you prove that you are right and I am wrong, I refuse to believe in gravity.

There really is nowhere to go on this, is there? Demanding 100% understanding of something when the primary limitation is our own intellect is never going to be a good path to choose.

 

[ebia]

I've mentioned before that I am inclined to believe that Jesus was a great philosopher and should be revered as such.

The trouble is his philosophy amounts to "YHWH promised to do defeat evil, put things right and judge the unjust when he returned to be king. That's now happening in me and what i am doing." it's not an abstract "be nice to people".

To admire Jesus as a philosopher you basically have to invent a version of him for which there is no historical evidence.

The miracles (not magic) are inherently part and parcel of what he claimed to be doing; embodying YHWH's promisec return to Zion.

 

[ebia]

There are a couple of reasons that I doubt the testimony.

Firstly, as pointed out previously, the accounts weren't written down for decades. It's difficult to maintain an accurate Verbal storyline for a few months let alone decades.

not when the story is preserved by a community because it matters - see Kenneth Bailey's studies on the oral stories in Near Eastern tribal societies.

Indeed, there is an indigenous australian story from not far from here that has successfully preserved the oral record of a geological event for over 10,000 years!

In fact there is every reason to think the five accounts of the resurrection were all pretty much fixed in form by the time Paul wrote is only two decades after the event itself.

Secondly. I don't reject the accounts out of hand. I just don't think they're objective.

accounts never are objective - people tell them for a reason and that reason always shapes the telling. That's not a reason to dismiss them.

The stories are a piece of first century data that demands to be explained. As NT Wright had shown, there are major problems with all the explanations hitherto suggested that assume the resurrection did not happen.

 

[hedrick]

On your first point regarding Christ turning the devil down: you are using the bible as evidence, which is dependent upon your faith in it.

You're second point is a good one- I'd never considered the unsuitability of the word immortal to describe Christ.

The control over time does interest me though. If god is in effect timeless then why then is there a shift change between the ot and nt? To a layman it appears to be wholly (or holy!) different in it's attitude - I believe some Christians call it the new contract? Why not start of with the love thy fellow man stuff rather than the millennia of fire and brimstone stuff? There seems to be a chronology to it, which one wouldn't expect in a timeless god.

I think it's most likely that God is outside time. There are other approaches, but if you accept him as having created space-time, that seems to place him outside it.

But even if God is outside time, he deals with people who are within it, and thus he can have different dealings at different times. The difference between OT and NT is handled differently by different Christians. But I think most of us believe in some form of progressive revelation. For whatever reason, God pretty clearly doesn't act just by brute force. He is trying to help us understand him. And that process occurs over time. Christians vary in how they treat this. Because I don't think the Bible is inerrant, I think parts of it reflect a partial understanding of God. In my view, God was trying to bring Israel to understand him, but at early stages they saw him as a tribal war god, even though he wasn't. Hence the call to come out of pagan culture turned into killing all the pagans.

But if you look at the message of the Prophets, you'll find most of Jesus' message already present in the OT. The prophets said that what God cared about was not that you follow specific laws in how you worship him (although they certainly didn't accept idols or multiple gods), but how we treat each other. They saw Israel as a light to the Gentiles, not people sent to kill them. They demanded justice and support for the weakest members of society. Their priorities are very close to Jesus'. That message was present from during the period of the kings, which is really as far back as an accurate historical record goes.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" is from Lev 19:18, which is the heart of the old law code in the OT. However in the OT most of Israel saw this kind of thing as applying to other Israelites, not to outsiders. But there were prophets giving a wider view.

I'm not sure what you mean by fire and brimstone. If you're talking about threats of hell in the afterlife, the OT by and large doesn't contain such threats. In the OT, God is understood as taking his vengeance in history. So there isn't fire and brimstone, but when Israel is conquered, the Prophets see that as an act of judgement by God. I've run out of time (have to go to work), so I'm going to think about that for later today.

 

[Foolish]

1 Kings 3

Solomon Asks for Wisdom

1 Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter. He brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the temple of the LORD, and the wall around Jerusalem. 2 The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the LORD. 3 Solomon showed his love for the LORD by walking according to the instructions given him by his father David, except that he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places. 4 The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.”
6 Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.
7 “Now, LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”
10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in obedience to me and keep my decrees and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” 15 Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.
He returned to Jerusalem, stood before the ark of the Lord’s covenant and sacrificed burnt offerings and fellowship offerings. Then he gave a feast for all his court.
A Wise Ruling

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. 17 One of them said, “Pardon me, my lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I had a baby while she was there with me. 18 The third day after my child was born, this woman also had a baby. We were alone; there was no one in the house but the two of us. 19 “During the night this woman’s son died because she lay on him. 20 So she got up in the middle of the night and took my son from my side while I your servant was asleep. She put him by her breast and put her dead son by my breast. 21 The next morning, I got up to nurse my son—and he was dead! But when I looked at him closely in the morning light, I saw that it wasn’t the son I had borne.”
22 The other woman said, “No! The living one is my son; the dead one is yours.”
But the first one insisted, “No! The dead one is yours; the living one is mine.” And so they argued before the king.
23 The king said, “This one says, ‘My son is alive and your son is dead,’ while that one says, ‘No! Your son is dead and mine is alive.’”
24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword for the king. 25 He then gave an order: “Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other.”
26 The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved out of love for her son and said to the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!”
But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!”
27 Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.”
28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.



and you dont need sacrifice Jesus came down for that. just believe and in season you will recieve.

I have absolutely no idea what relevance that has to any of the previous pages on this thread.

Besides, the woman that asked for half a child was an idiot. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could work out what was happening in that scenario.