Are Morals Relevant?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Okay, let's even go with this statement. Outside the Bible, how might one know a resurrection happened?

Eyewitness accounts, if I'm not mistaken the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

Maybe one day you'll recognize the circularity of your skepticism, and the futility (for any of us) of making knowledge claims without an absolute standard of truth. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH...and the life. I hope and pray the Father draws you, I do not believe it is by random coincidence you're posting on a Christian forum asking these questions.

I was brought up in Christianity. Why, because I was born in America. Most likely, the same reason I would most likely belong to a Muslim forum, asking relevant questions, if born in India.

If your standard was absolute, then 5/7's of the world would not disagree with you. I'm asking for proof of a resurrection. This would be a great start. If you are unwilling to demonstrate a resurrection, unfortunately, you are appealing to a blank assertion, and passing it off as absolute truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Eyewitness accounts, if I'm not mistaken the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Jesus.

You are asserting the largest claim for absolute truth, and you state, 'if I'm not mistaken'?

- Josephus was born after a claimed resurrection.
- Josephus could not be an eye witness.
- Josephus' original published works never mentioned anything about Christ.
- Many decades later, during multiple re-copies, was when the 127 word golden paragraph was later added. Meaning, it was a forgery.
- Furthermore, it did not even speak about anything pertaining to a resurrection.

*********

For someone asserting absolute truth, you might want to do a click bit better.?.?.?

 

[cvanwey]

Go ahead, do what you want.
Yahweh's Word won't change. Unbelief results in perishing forever.

Attention all Christians, morals are irrelevant. Stop using the moral argument. It does not matter.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I was brought up in Christianity. Why, because I was born in America. Most likely, the same reason I would most likely belong to a Muslim forum, asking relevant questions, if born in India.

America is one of the most diversive countries in the world regarding religion. America is not the "Christian" nation it once was. If you were born in India, it might be just as likely to be brought up in a pantheistic religion. Bottom line, truth is not measured by whatever we are raised up to believe and our assumptions involved in learning and I think we agree.

If your standard was absolute, then 5/7's of the world would not disagree with you. I'm asking for proof of a resurrection. This would be a great start. If you are unwilling to demonstrate a resurrection, unfortunately, you are appealing to a blank assertion, and passing it off as absolute truth.

How does it follow that because there is an absolute standard that there would be absolute agreement? The fact is it does not, the fallacy in formal logic is called an ad popullum, an appeal to popularity or a majority. Truth is truth whether it involves a majority or a minority.

As for the resurrection, I find merit in C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument, his version of the moral argument also hold up nicely.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You are asserting the largest claim for absolute truth, and you state, 'if I'm not mistaken'?

- Josephus was born after a claimed resurrection.
- Josephus could not be an eye witness.
- Josephus' original published works never mentioned anything about Christ.
- Many decades later, during multiple re-copies, was when the 127 word golden paragraph was later added. Meaning, it was a forgery.
- Furthermore, it did not even speak about anything pertaining to a resurrection.

*********

For someone asserting absolute truth, you might want to do a click bit better.?.?.?

Ah yes, except that absolute truth does not entail the notion that all truth is absolute, certainly it is not the case, we all have preferences. But anyway, not that it matters, but I'll explain the cherry picked "if I'm not mistaken". That came from the fact my memory is not infallible and it has literally been years since I looked into or read anything from Josephus. So, I kindly found an article for you to read which I thought was a fair and balanced treatment of the subject, which I highly doubt you read based on your response.

 

[cvanwey]

America is one of the most diversive countries in the world regarding religion. America is not the "Christian" nation it once was.

I'm aware... I'm responding to your prior insinuation as to why I'm actually posting here (actual motivation). I was making the point, that because I was born here, there would be a high likelihood I would be under the Christian umbrella in some form, as ~80% are

If you were born in India, it might be just as likely to be brought up in a pantheistic religion. Bottom line, truth is not measured by whatever we are raised up to believe and our assumptions involved in learning and I think we agree.

I agree, but you missed my actual point. It's okay, it's bound to happen, when not speaking face to face. I'm fully admitting I am a product of my environment. I was raised Christian. If I was in another country, I would most likely have been raised in another religion. Do a google search for 'world religion map'. Many are a product of environment. I'm one of them But now I question it. Please re-read the OP.

How does it follow that because there is an absolute standard that there would be absolute agreement? The fact is it does not, the fallacy in formal logic is called an ad popullum, an appeal to popularity or a majority. Truth is truth whether it involves a majority or a minority.

I trust and hope that my prior response now sheds a little light? I'm fully aware of many fallacies, and strive not to violate them, when at all possible.

As for the resurrection, I find merit in C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument, his version of the moral argument also hold up nicely.

My contention, is that he left out the biggest "L'" of all. He is presenting a trilemma. When in fact another one exists... (L)engend From Mark to John, one can see the evolutionary tales and stories grow.

 

[cvanwey]

Ah yes, except that absolute truth does not entail the notion that all truth is absolute, certainly it is not the case, we all have preferences. But anyway, not that it matters, but I'll explain the cherry picked "if I'm not mistaken". That came from the fact my memory is not infallible and it has literally been years since I looked into or read anything from Josephus. So, I kindly found an article for you to read which I thought was a fair and balanced treatment of the subject, which I highly doubt you read based on your response.

You appear very hostile and judgemental. If my assessment does not align with your view, why are you assuming what I have, and have not studied??? Josephus wrote about what "others" believed. This is fact. If he was born after Jesus died, how would he be an eye witness??? Josephus spoke nothing about a resurrection, even if one decided to view the 'golden paragraph' as legitimate. So how does this validate a resurrection????? This was my entire line of questioning. Which again is, what evidence exists outside the Bible for a resurrection claim. This publication offers nothing for a resurrection, for the many reasons stated. Bias has no relevancy.

My entire OP states I cannot accept the resurrection, based upon evidence. I also stated that if I do not believe this claim, I most likely CANNOT go to heaven, regardless of 'my' moral foundation. Do you agree, or disagree? If you do agree, then the title of my original post appears validated, from your perspective, doesn't it?

I'm looking for anyone to redirect my thinking away from, 'morals are irrelevant' in regards to Christianity?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

You appear very hostile and judgemental.

Appearances are often deceiving. I feel no hostility towards you, the stakes are higher in my mind, therefore it produces passion for the subject. Judgmental? Not really, but you're welcome to believe what you will. I'm firm and sold out to Jesus, and believe in the Good News and the Bad News, but final judgement is reserved for God alone, not that we're not to make any until then, and everyone makes them, there simply is no escaping the necessity, even secular societies have laws and courtrooms and for good reason. But me personally? I'm an easy going guy if you want the truth of the matter. It would do me well to be a little "harder" than I am and be less mindful of others opinions, but we are who we are.

If my assessment does not align with your view, why are you assuming what I have, and have not studied??? Josephus wrote about what "others" believed. This is fact. If he was born after Jesus died, how would he be an eye witness??? Josephus spoke nothing about a resurrection, even if one decided to view the 'golden paragraph' as legitimate. So how does this validate a resurrection????? This was my entire line of questioning. Which again is, what evidence exists outside the Bible for a resurrection claim. This publication offers nothing for a resurrection, for the many reasons stated. Bias has no relevancy.

Well, you misconstrued my original statement, which was not intended to mean that Josephus was an eyewitness himself, but that he had access to people close to the time of the more than 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6 ) eyewitnesses. Josephus lived from 37 ce - 100 ce (per Wiki). His antiquities was published in 94 ce (per Wiki). So he did in fact have access to people who were.

My entire OP states I cannot accept the resurrection, based upon evidence. I also stated that if I do not believe this claim, I most likely CANNOT go to heaven, regardless of 'my' moral foundation. Do you agree, or disagree? If you do agree, then the title of my original post appears validated, from your perspective, doesn't it?

You're asking people to make a judgement, you're inciting a judgmental attitude. I am a Christian, according to the Christian Scriptures you are on the highway to Hell. You claim to have counter evidence for not accepting the ressurection, but I am still waiting, that you do not accept the evidence and arguments which Christians accept, guess that places you in the ~20%, based on your "~80%" Christian figure. I'll be waiting for something substantial, maybe you could disprove the ~80%, but I suspect you'll only retort that it's me resorting to ad popullum. But it doesn't change the facts does it?

I'm looking for anyone to redirect my thinking away from, 'morals are irrelevant' in regards to Christianity?

I thought you were wanting evidence for the resurrection? I think you're just looking for an argument.

 

[cvanwey]

Appearances are often deceiving. I feel no hostility towards you, the stakes are higher in my mind, therefore it produces passion for the subject. Judgmental? Not really, but you're welcome to believe what you will. I'm firm and sold out to Jesus, and believe in the Good News and the Bad News, but final judgement is reserved for God alone, not that we're not to make any until then, and everyone makes them, there simply is no escaping the necessity, even secular societies have laws and courtrooms and for good reason. But me personally? I'm an easy going guy if you want the truth of the matter. It would do me well to be a little "harder" than I am and be less mindful of others opinions, but we are who we are.

Kool! This topic does stir emotion, I agree. No worries, moving forward

Well, you misconstrued my original statement, which was not intended to mean that Josephus was an eyewitness himself, but that he had access to people close to the time of the more than 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6 ) eyewitnesses. Josephus lived from 37 ce - 100 ce (per Wiki). His antiquities was published in 94 ce (per Wiki). So he did in fact have access to people who were.

Okay, no worries...

But the sighted passage is from hearsay, and is not eyewitness testimony. He is claiming what 500 others saw. There was no corroboration.

eyewitness - a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it.

hearsay - information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor. the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

You're asking people to make a judgement, you're inciting a judgmental attitude. I am a Christian, according to the Christian Scriptures you are on the highway to Hell. You claim to have counter evidence for not accepting the ressurection, but I am still waiting, that you do not accept the evidence and arguments which Christians accept, guess that places you in the ~20%, based on your "~80%" Christian figure. I'll be waiting for something substantial, maybe you could disprove the ~80%, but I suspect you'll only retort that it's me resorting to ad popullum. But it doesn't change the facts does it?

I cannot prove a claim did not happen. As you know, that would be committing the 'burden of proof' fallacy

It would be like you disproving Big Foot. "What, you don't accept the evidence?"

Your claim is NOT FALSIFIABLE. Just like Big Foot. I follow the evidence. For me, it severely lacks. And yes, I can only retort the claims, because you are the one making the claim, not me I state I don't believe you, and for the following reasons

So present your best reasons for your belief, so I may evaluate them....

I thought you were wanting evidence for the resurrection? I think you're just looking for an argument.

No, looking for legitimate evidence. TY!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

So present your best reasons for your belief, so I may evaluate them....

Sorry for the brevity of personal response here, in this case, it might be for the best to save on time and space (considering it's going off topic, but because you asked...). Before I post the relevant links though, here is a short little story about a period of time in my life. Between 2001-2003 I spent a great deal of time debating atheists/agnostic and just about anyone I found disagreement with. I learned a great deal of things in the process, I learned from them and from outside study and research. At the time I was a Weslyian/Pentecostcal type, and in defending the faith, I leaned heavily on a Classical/Rational approach while paying attention to evidential/historical approaches, and honestly had mostly disdain for the fideist approach. So anyway, after a couple of years of this, and mostly privately conceding many things, I came to realize the weakness of the approach I used, weakness may be putting it nicely. For example, the realization set in on just how little each of the arguments taken as single arguments substantiate, and here I was a Christian with a very nuanced and specific God with so many doctrines and other specifics to a Christian worldview, and how woefully short these arguments fell from proving that the God that exists is the God of Christianity. My whole thinking crumbled apart, I realized the probabilities involved in the arguments and how these arguments always leave a backdoor open, always. Even one of my favorite arguments, the moral argument for the existence of God, the main thrust of your thread here, I came to realize the difficulty in proving moral absolutes (though I do have a couple of gross examples, rather not go there). I actually came to a point where everything just shattered into a million pieces. To say I was experiencing doubts is an understatement, I began questioning everything I held dear, including my faith. Could I know anything with certainty? Does it all boil down to faith and probabilities? Agnosticism was setting in, and there was little I could do to prevent it. Feeling hopeless and discouraged, I decided to looking into other approaches outside of my Wesleyan box. I loaded a software disc in my PC that has an entire collection of lectures by a man by the name of Cornelius Van Til and although the quality was terrible, I suffered through and started listening and listening, and lights were clicking on even though I could hardly understand every little detail, nonetheless changes were taking place, tears were in my eyes, and I began to realize, "this man is speaking the truth, he knows what he is talking about, he is being faithful to Scripture in the whole process". Through and because of this crisis of faith, I became a convinced Calvinist, and a convinced presuppositionalist. Now many years later while I am a presuppositionalist, it's inspired me to take a more integrated approach, with an appreciation for the arguments from each of the approaches, while a Christian presuppositionalism is the methodology underneath or behind the various arguments. In other words, the traditional arguments are supportive and perfectly valid within a Christian worldview, even encouraging and uplifting, however when used as single arguments in order to prove the God of Christianity, their individual weakness is exposed. Chained together they make a much stronger case, but still will not convince the already convinced non-believer. The primary need for man is regeneration or "the new birth" or the "born again" experience. Without the ears to hear, without a softened heart, without the light of Christ, we remain in darkness and love the darkness and remain in enmity with God in the carnality of our minds. I could go on, but I will leave it at that and provide a few links to resources going into some detail concerning my faith and reasons with more depth than I am able to go into and saving on time and space.

Why I Believe in God by Cornelius Van Til

Apologetics and the Heart by Douglas Wilson

Presuppositional Apologetics by John M. Frame

Biblical Presuppositional Apologetics by Michael Butler

 

[Allandavid]

Eyewitness accounts, if I'm not mistaken the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Jesus.

No, he wrote about Christians and reported what they claimed about Jesus....

 

[Bobber]

How does not raping, not stealing, not murdering, not lying, and treating others with respect, benefit myself? Especially if one actually wants to do some/all such acts? Which I don't, but I'm just saying...

How does it benefit you? It does so by your doing your part to sustain stability in society and the rule of law which ultimately gives you and yours peace at least in this world.By peace I'm talking about societal peace not necessary spiritual. That comes with being born again.

I still did not get a clear answer? If I cannot get myself to believe in a resurrection claim, but try to follow a 'moral' architecture, which happens to align with many Christian values, and I care genuinely about others, do I go to heaven or hell postmortem?

Well I reject your claim that you can't get yourself to receive the truth of Jesus resurrection claim but that's another matter. But you align yourself with a moral architect that reflects Christian values? God's not interested in creating a morality revolution among men just seeking to be good walking in their own natural state. In the spirit of every man God wants to impart LIFE...which is Jesus LIFE ETERNAL the love and nature of God making one his child. It is having one's spirit recreated not seeking to sustain some moral code. Such doesn't mean one continues to walk in sin after they've received THE LIGHT however but it's what God imparts into man which brings him salvation not trying to keep the law.

 

[DogmaHunter]

X is the immutable Holy perfect standard by which any moral argument is settled.

That's what ISIS terrorists say as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Who said there was any point to it ? Not me.

Without the Son, morals won't help anyone. Certainly won't save them from certain doom.

So… it's not a system of justice. It's not a system that rewards good and retaliates bad.
Instead, it's a system that rewards gullibility and retaliates rationality / skepticism.

Ironically, that's very immoral.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Okay, why not, I'll bite, setting aside the burden of proof of defining "good" without a basis outside of self...anyway, so this is an integrated cumulative approach:

From a Classical apologetic standpoint:

Norman Geisler states:

• "Truth about reality is knowable.
• The opposite of true is false.
• It is true that the theistic God exists.
• If God exists, then miracles are possible.
• Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as an act of God to confirm a word from God).
• The New Testament is historically reliable.
• The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
• Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
  • a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;
  • b. His sinless and miraculous life;
  • c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection.
• Therefore, Jesus is God.
• Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
• Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
• Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false)."

A modern version of Aselm's ontological argument:

• The existence of a necessary Being must be either (a) a necessary existence, (b) an impossible existence, or (c) a possible but not necessary existence.
• But the existence of a necessary Being is not an impossible existence because (so far as we can see) there is nothing contradictory about this concept.
• Nor is the existence of a necessary Being a possible but not necessary existence, since this would be a self-contradictory claim.
• Therefore, the existence of a necessary Being is a necessary existence.
• Therefore, a necessary Being necessarily exists.

William Lane Craig's simple version of the cosmological argument:

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Norman Geisler's version of the cosmological argument:

1. Some limited, changing being(s) exist(s).
2. The present existence of every limited, changing being is caused by another.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes of being.
4. Therefore, there is a first Cause of the present existence of these beings.
5. The first Cause must be infinite, necessary, eternal, simple, unchangeable, and one.
6. This first uncaused Cause is identical with the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

From an Evidentialist Apologetic standpoint:

Here is a chart using what is known as the anthropic principal:

Cosmic and Geological Evidence of Design
View attachment 229822
Gary Habbermas's historical argument:

• Jesus was publicly executed and died on a Roman cross.
• Jesus was buried in a tomb.
• Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty the Sunday after his burial.
• Jesus’ followers had no basis for hoping that he would be raised from the dead.
• Women friends of Jesus had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.
• Jesus’ apostles had experiences of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.
• The first Christians proclaimed in Jerusalem just weeks after Jesus’ death that he had literally risen from the dead.
• Paul, a persecutor of the Christians, converted to faith in Christ after an experience of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

From a Reformed Apologetic standpoint:

"Apologetics in the modern period has been dominated by the concern to provide reasons, whether in the form of proof or evidence, for belief in the existence of God. Increasingly in modern philosophy the assumption became more and more prevalent that the burden of proof was on the theist to show good reasons for believing in God, not on the nontheist to show good reasons for disbelieving in God. This assumption reached its classic formulation in Antony Flew’s often discussed article “The Presumption of Atheism.” The Reformed apologist seeks to end this trend, and even to turn the tables around. Greg Bahnsen offers a particularly forceful rebuttal to the atheist presumption:

"The issue of the burden of proof is often misconstrued. If we are arguing over something whose existence or nonexistence has no bearing on the intelligibility of our experience and reasoning (say, unicorns), then understandably the burden of proof rests on those who affirm its existence; without evidence, such things should be dismissed as figments of their imagination. But the existence of God is not on this order. God’s existence would have tremendous bearing on the possibility of man knowing anything at all, having self-conscious intelligence, properly interpreting his experiences, or making his reasoning intelligible—even making sense out of what we call “imagination.” In this special case, the burden of proof in the argument between a theist and an antitheist would shift to the person denying God’s existence, since the possibility and intelligibility of that very debate is directly affected by the position taken."

One important Reformed apologist who focuses on removing the burden of proof from the theist (though not on transferring the burden of proof to the nontheist, as Bahnsen urges) is Alvin Plantinga. His most famous contention is that the Christian (or other theist) is warranted in believing in God’s existence whether or not he can offer supporting arguments or evidences for his belief. As Plantinga puts it, belief in God is properly basic. We introduced his position in chapter 12. Here we will consider this particular idea in more depth, since it is often misunderstood. In what follows, we will be summarizing many of the key points in Plantinga’s paper “Reason and Belief in God” in Faith and Rationality.

According to Plantinga, a belief is basic if a person holds it without basing it on some other belief, that is, if it is not inferred from other beliefs. A belief is properly basic if the person holding it is in some significant way warranted in doing so. Several important implications of Plantinga’s notion of basicality need to be understood.

First, a belief may be basic for a person at one time but not at another. For example, a person who believes that a man committed a murder on the basis of a detective’s investigative report might come to hold that belief as basic after viewing a tape of the incident. Likewise, a person who believes in God on the basis of rational arguments for God’s existence might later come to hold that belief as basic after having a religious experience (as happened to Plantinga).

Second, a belief may be properly basic for one person but not for another. For example, a person who witnessed a murder may hold as a basic belief that the defendant committed the murder (simply because he saw it happen), while a person on the jury who agreed would not be able to hold that belief as basic. Likewise, one person might believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on the testimony of the apostles in the New Testament, while the apostles themselves held that belief as basic because they saw and touched the risen Jesus.

Third, the fact that a belief is basic for someone does not mean it is groundless. For example, a person’s belief that he sees a tree is basic because it is not inferred from other beliefs; but it is not groundless, because it is grounded in his immediate experience of seeing the tree. Likewise, a person who holds as a basic belief that God exists might do so because he had a religious experience; that experience, then, would be the ground of the belief. Plantinga insists that belief in God can be properly basic for him without being groundless (78-82).

Fourth, Plantinga’s claim that belief in God can be properly basic does not imply that just any belief can be basic. This is what he calls “the Great Pumpkin objection”: “What about the belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween? Could I properly take that as basic?” (74). Plantinga’s answer is no, because that belief would have nothing to ground it, and there is no reason why anyone should consider such a belief basic (74-78).

Fifth, the idea that a belief is properly basic is to be distinguished from two other concepts. To say that a belief is basic is not a statement about the degree of confidence or certainty with which it is held. The firmness with which a person holds a certain belief is not directly related to whether that belief is basic for him. One may hold different basic beliefs with varying degrees of firmness—for example, being more confident that 2 + 3 = 5 than that one had eggs for breakfast this morning. One may even be more confident of some nonbasic beliefs than of some basic beliefs—for example, being more confident that 21 x 21 = 441, a belief held from computing it using other math facts, than that one had eggs for breakfast last Saturday (49-50).

Sixth, it is possible to abandon beliefs that one held as basic beliefs, even as properly basic. Any argument or information that removes the ground for acceptance of a belief is called a defeater. A person who sees what looks exactly like a bowl of fruit on a table may hold as a basic belief that he sees a bowl of fruit. Later, if a trusted friend informs him that the bowl contained imitation fruit made of plastic, he will likely abandon his belief, even though it was properly basic. In this case the trusted friend’s testimony constitutes a defeater. The person who holds a basic belief that God exists is not thereby closed to evidences or reasons that might be raised against it. Such evidences or reasons “constitute potential defeaters for justification in theistic belief,” and they will become real defeaters for the person who is made aware of the arguments but has nothing with which to “defeat the defeaters.” According to Plantinga, “Various forms of theistic apologetics serve this function (among others)” (84). Plantinga, then, is supportive of apologetics, both negative (answering defeaters) and positive (offering positive arguments)." - from "Faith Has Its Reasons" by Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman

From a Fideist Apologetic standpoint:

Donald Bloesch states:

"What Christians have is not self-certainty but “soul-certainty” (Forsyth), or even better, God-certainty. It is not the fact of our experience but the fact which we experience that shapes and determines Christian faith (Forsyth). . . . What Forsyth says is quite sound: “We have not two certitudes about these supreme matters, produced by authority and experience, but one, produced by authority in experience; not a certitude produced by authority and then corroborated by experience, but one produced by an authority active only in experience, and especially the corporate experience of a Church.”

Finally an example how different approaches work together:


View attachment 229821


Yes, in technical terms, it is a Revelational epistemology.

Fantastic collection of logically fallacious nonsense.
Assumed conclusion fiesta.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry but proving the resurrection, has more to do with proving that the God that exists is the God of Christianity, rather than simply proving an objective moral standard. The moral argument is just as effective for followers of Judaism as it is for Christianity. I would argue it is not effective for followers of Islam, because "The Quran describes Allah as the best deceiver there is, a liar who is not above using the same evil and wicked schemes of his opponents."

That's extremely interesting.

Tell me, what foundation are you using for this moral judgement concerning Allah?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Eyewitness accounts, if I'm not mistaken the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Jesus.

Not an eyewitness.
Nore independent.

The dude is just repeating what believers were saying / believing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you believe that, why do you spend so much time on a religious forum?

It's actually one of the reasons.

See, I prefer my fellow otherwise decent citizens, to not turn into monsters.

I also prefer them to hold as many justified beliefs and the least unjustified beliefs as possible. I actually care about the secular society I live in.

Other then that, I like learning about what people believe and why.

 

[Skreeper]

Go ahead, do what you want.
Yahweh's Word won't change. Unbelief results in perishing forever.

So you believe Hell is just getting "deleted" instead of the classic fire and brimstone version?