Origin of God's Morality.

[Nihilist Virus]

According to a citation on wiki, an estimated 5 to 6 percent of the general population have been abducted by extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth.

While some might find this compelling, I have not yet taken precautions to reduce the chance of myself or my family from being abducted during the night.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

Or are you simply choosing to not believe in it despite being convinced by the evidence?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Or are you simply choosing to not believe in it despite being convinced by the evidence?

You mean he wasn't convinced by the citation he quoted that cited the same article he was quoting? Oh, mercy me I've been hornswaggled........

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And many believe they have.

Eyewitness testimony, historian writings.

Same as other religions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Who are you to judge anyone's sincerity? Anyone can believe anything they want, just look in the mirror. If you asked if I can believe in something that's demonstrably not true, there's a different answer.

Based on your own statements, you weren't sincere in your belief in unicorns. You were only able to feign belief, to make-believe, and you seemingly expect us to do likewise with respect to your religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have stories, which are evidence, and you don't accept them. Case closed.

Other religions also have stories. Are such stories enough to convince you that their supernatural claims are true?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I pray.

Owkay. So you answer is, you can't. You just believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't threaten anyone, empty or otherwise.

*ahum*

When you become eternally separated from God, then find out that he is everything we believe, and much, much more, you will gnash your teeth, you will think you're burning from lack of God's grace. The hell is more internal than external.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, it doesn't. Santa was modeled by secular society after the bishop Nicholas, who gave away all his wealth to take care of the poor in his diocese.

Still in juvenile dodging mode I see.

My point was about not being able to "choose" to believe something of which you aren't actually convinced to be real. When I gave Santa as an example, I obviously didn't mean the bishop, but the fat guy that lives at the North Pole with Elves and who brings toys to children during christmass night.

You know this off course, you just really really wanted to avoid admitting that "belief" is not a choice, but a compulsion.

It's okay. I get it.

It's not compulsory. If you're not convinced, so what?

If I'm not convinced of X, I'm not going to believe X is true.
That should be rather obvious.

I am, and I won't be able to convince you, but you are here trolling in a Christian board trying to show how stupid some Christians are. I am completely aware of your tactics. By the way, happy belated atheist holy day.

Your mind-reading skills seem broken.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The answer to the question is Yes.

So, you could, right now, "choose" to believe that christianity is false and Thor is real?

And really believe it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, they're killing more Christians...

Actually, no. The vast majority of their victims are muslims.
And they themselves have so much "faith", that they even use their own bodies as weapons. They are so confident in their beliefs, they happily sacrifice their lives in battle.

No, but it is amazing how people criticize Christians, NOT for being and acting Christ-like, but for not being and acting Christ-like.

Who are these people?
I don't recall having made such critisism.

And the Gospels, and subsequent writings of the early Church, demonstrate it just fine, thanks.

Yep, just like the Quran demonstrates islam.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have stories, which are evidence, and you don't accept them. Case closed.

"Stories" are just stories.

"Stories" require evidence. They are not evidence themselves.

By definition, "stories" are claims.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If I tell you a story and included extraordinary claims in my story, would my story serve as evidence the story is true?

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which historians?

The authors of the gospels are all anonymous, no one knows who wrote them.

Actually, the Church knows who wrote them. You don't accept the Church's authority. There's the problem.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lol, again with your persecution complex. I said that Catholics invented things because they did. They claim certain things to be fact when there is no historical record of them, even if you are of the persuasion that the gospels are historical. Hence the things they say are inventions.

Prove it.

Show me please.



1. You condemn me for making impersonal attacks on an institution, even though I didn't.
2. You believe that you should be living by the words of Christ (or am I mistaken on this?).
3. Christ said to turn the other cheek.
4. ???
5. You are justified in making personal attacks on me by grouping me with barbarians.

Show me where I made a personal attack. Regarding turning the other cheek, you do know that doing so is an act of defiance, do you not?

Right, awesome, where are these documents please.



Who do you think you're correcting by saying this?

You and your claim about who wrote the Gospels and why it matters or doesn't. Written by...would mean that the purported author actually wrote the words. According to...means that he taught people these things, and someone wrote them down.

OK.



There was a sign that appeared only to Paul, confirmed by no one. He was accepted primarily because he was a prominent man beforehand. How do you know Paul was not under Satanic influence? How do you actually know? He was just a man, and other men decided which of his works would be canonized and which ones wouldn't. I don't see God here, but surely Satan was doing everything he could've to corrupt the process.

The others heard or saw something, just not the same thing. It was a private revelation. He was accepted with great fear and trepidation because of his history, he was accepted because God spoke to His disciple and asked him to accept him. How did Ananias know that he wasn't under Satanic influence? He didn't, except that God told Ananias that he had had an experience.
You don't see God there? Who has scales on his eyes???

Funny you say that because below you say that "the Church didn't really need his help, except to expand to the center of known civilization." Was that a big deal or not? Are you saying it was both miraculous and inconsequential?

You're aware that most miracles are normal occurances? Not a big deal really. It was God's work, Paul was His instrument.

Exactly my point, even now when Christianity is prominent you still take pride in someone like him coming into the fold. So imagine how the fledgling church felt about getting Paul.

I don't have to imagine, I can read it in the Bible.

So... Paul does not speak for God? Why are his epistles canonized?

Paul wasn't a prophet. He was an apostle. After John the Baptist, there have been no more prophets.

The church didn't need his help, just a miracle.



So what?

You see, there were other evangelists converting the world than Paul. Spreading the exact same message. God accomplishes what God wants how God wants it. There were many more evangelists than just Paul.

Yes. It was normal, and it happened in Mark. What you seem to think is that there was a negative connotation with forgeries back then. You keep either skimming or reading things into what I say. Either way you're not really paying attention and so dialogue is proving to be pointless. I even took the trouble to use the term "polite forgery." You just aren't listening.

Your claim of forgery doesn't seem the same as "polite forgery". You have a problem understanding what I'm saying, as well...

I was only making a point about how Christians mock JWs and don't give an ounce of charity despite needing the same charity for their own position.

That's not at all what you said, though. I don't know any Christians that mock JWs, mostly we just let them be. As for charity, agape love, we are called to love all mankind, even our enemies. I recognize that lots of Christians have problems with that, but again, this is criticizing Christians for not acting Christian. So are you criticizing that, or are you criticizing Christians for acting Christian? If the former, I can completely agree with you, even about myself, when I fail to do so.

You have dead bodies. Great. Now tell me how that proves anything.

We have accounts about how and why they died. See below for proof.

Sure, I'm perfectly happy to give you that. But it doesn't mean your "Why die for a lie?" argument is valid. I explained thoroughly why it is a lie, or at best a fallacy.

Because we know their circumstances, how they were given opportunities to recant their faith in return for lavish wealth and position, and refused, because their belief was in what Jesus taught.

The same could be said for Islam, right?

I don't know. But Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot accounted for 100 million.

Peter, the co-founder of the church, renounced Christ, not once, not twice, but three times. Yet when others do it they are excommunicated. I could not summarize hypocrisy more succinctly than basic, core Christian doctrine.

The point you missed is that they repented, were rejoined to the Church, and then died for the Church...
Peter didn't co-found a Church. Christ founded it alone. Peter was the Rock on which it was built. Peter denied Christ before he had been strengthened. He was forgiven after having repented of his sin. I don't know any who were excommunicated for repenting of their sin and seeking forgiveness. By the way, you should know that excommunication is something someone does to themselves. The Church recognizes such, and also forgives. Forgiveness requires repentance, though...

Yeah, I can hardly contain myself.




Skimmed it. Lol.

Just kidding, didn't read it and I don't intend to. If you have a point you wish to draw from it, say it here.

So you accuse me of 'history of skimming', and then don't read what's provided to you...pot, meet kettle.

Woah boy. Coming from you. I already said discussion between us was pointless, and you keep digging deeper.

Pot, meet kettle.

OK, whatever.



Allah claimed to be Allah. Muhammad brought it to the Muslims. Same.



OK.



Yep, bang up job you did in my "The Universe with no need of God" thread.



LOL.

If that's a serious question, it's probably because Matthew gives the genealogy right off the bat.

The answer is in the link. Matthew was first because it was written first.

Like I said, you have no idea how the ancient world worked and you are imposing your modern views. If you think the word "forgery" carries a negative connotation, we can call it something else. But nothing said can change the fact that someone who wasn't the author of Mark altered his words.

Also, it is the overwhelming view of academia that Mark was written first. Here's the accepted timeline:

If you dispute the consensus of the experts, you need to know exactly what their argument is just to have the right to call yourself an armchair historian. If you want to actually be taken seriously, you need to do real research.

I know what their argument is, and I disagree with it. Just because a lot of people agree with it doesn't make it right. It is anciently held by the ancient Church by those who were close to the original manuscripts, and that is the Augustinian viewpoint. It is modern scholarship, based on conjecture of a non-existent Q source, which is the basis of the Markian HYPOTHESIS.
Tradition - Post Apostolic & other Early Church Fathers & internal textual evidence:

Matthew - 45-50 A.D.
Mark - Mid 50's
Luke - 64 A.D. as Part of Luke/Acts
John - First Draft 60 A.D, Final 70-75 A.D.

Scholars - Most of whom treat the Gospels differently from all other ancient literature:

Mark - 70-75 A.D.
Matthew - 80-85 A.D.
Luke - 80-85 A.D.
John - 90-110 A.D.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...story-about-the-order-of-the-synoptic-gospels

 

[Root of Jesse]

Based on your own statements, you weren't sincere in your belief in unicorns. You were only able to feign belief, to make-believe, and you seemingly expect us to do likewise with respect to your religion.

Not at all what I was suggesting. There is evidence of Christ and Christianity. It's your choice to disbelieve it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Other religions also have stories. Are such stories enough to convince you that their supernatural claims are true?

What religions? What stories? I don't know of any supernatural claims of other religions. I've read a lot of books with Shintoism, none of which have anything supernatural. I've read books involving Buddhism, never seen any supernatural claims, either. Islam claims that death by jihad will get you 72 virgins, I don't see that as supernatural.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Owkay. So you answer is, you can't. You just believe.

I have lots of justification, all of which is very rational. In fact, I believe it's IRrational not to believe it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

*ahum*

You find this to be a threat?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Still in juvenile dodging mode I see.

My point was about not being able to "choose" to believe something of which you aren't actually convinced to be real. When I gave Santa as an example, I obviously didn't mean the bishop, but the fat guy that lives at the North Pole with Elves and who brings toys to children during christmass night.

You know, the Church didn't invent Santa. That's a secular invention. I have CHOSEN not to teach fairy tales about some fat guy living at the North Pole. When my children asked about Santa, because they were told about him in school or somewhere, I did teach them about St. Nicholas, and where the legend of Santa Claus came from.

You know this off course, you just really really wanted to avoid admitting that "belief" is not a choice, but a compulsion.

You're the one who took it off course with your unicorns and Santa, in a thread about God's morality...

It's okay. I get it.



If I'm not convinced of X, I'm not going to believe X is true.
That should be rather obvious.




Your mind-reading skills seem broken.

If so, then what is your purpose on this board? Entertainment? Are you really that bored?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So, you could, right now, "choose" to believe that christianity is false and Thor is real?

And really believe it?

No, because there's no proof of Thor.