Help me.

[Gracchus]

my inicial response to this, and I mean no disrespect by this, was duh!!!! If all the early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine, they would not have crucified Him, or turned Him over to the authorities.

There were no Christians until Paul invented Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, and his followers were a Jewish cult.

but it (the mosaic) is evidence that he existed.

So, a statue of Zeus is evidence that Zeus existed? An amulet shaped like Thor’s hammer from a Viking burial mound is evidence for the existence of Thor? "Steamboat Willie" is evidence for the existence of Mickey Mouse?
And even by the accounts of the gospels it was not his followers that tortured him and turned him over to the authorities. It was the sanhedrin that turned him over to the Roman authorities, and the Romans who tortured and executed him.

So what you are arguing is that if I claim to be a monkey, evidencing that I can't make that claim if I am a monkey, is not going to help us know if I am a monkey or not....okay...I don't agree, but okay... your opinion doesn't have to be logical in order to be your opinion.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that an unsupported claim is not evidence.

So what you are arguing is that if I claim to be a monkey, evidencing that I can't make that claim if I am a monkey, is not going to help us know if I am a monkey or not....okay...I don't agree, but okay... your opinion doesn't have to be logical in order to be your opinion.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that an unsupported claim is not evidence.

all you are doing is dismissing the evidence as I said you would do....no problem, that is your right, we all base our conclusions on the premises we bring...when asked repeatedly for what you would call evidence, you gave nothing that would be possible for the time period we are talking about, so showing you evidence would never satisfy you, since you can't even tell us what you consider evidence.

"ev·i·dence ( ev·i·dence ( v -d ns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence."
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

see above, without knowing what you would classify as evidence, no one can provide evidence to you. What I presented is the evidence that most people accept and use to determine their beliefs.

That is correct. Most people do not use evidence to determine their beliefs.

You dismiss it all but provide nothing that you would accept as evidence from the time period.

I cannot provide what doesn’t exist. There is as much evidence, and no more, for Jesus, as there is for Zeus, Tammuz, Osiris, Bacchus, or Sol Invictus. Do you find that the evidence for the existence of Tammus is convincing, or would you dismiss it as unconvincing?

In other words, you set yourself up to dismiss all evidence by not being forthright and telling us what you would accept as evidence. If you do a quick websearch, you will see that the things I presented to you are evidences that are available from the time period, for the existance of anyone from the time.

The mosaic was evidence that people worshipped Jesus. Statues of Apollo are evidence that people worshipped Apollo. Mosaics and statues of Jesus and Apollo are not evidence that Jesus or Apollo actually existed, and were divine. See the difference?


　
　
　

 

[razzelflabben]

There were no Christians until Paul invented Christianity. Jesus was a Jew, and his followers were a Jewish cult.

actually, you are wrong, before Paul was converted, he was a persecuter of those of faith. It's hard to persecute someone who doesn't exist isn't it?

So, a statue of Zeus is evidence that Zeus existed?

I wouldn't think so, especially since the writing describe him as a deity only.

An amulet shaped like Thor’s hammer from a Viking burial mound is evidence for the existence of Thor?

again, not likely since the writings identify Thor as a god not in human flesh.

"Steamboat Willie" is evidence for the existence of Mickey Mouse?

again, your proving my point very well.

And even by the accounts of the gospels it was not his followers that tortured him and turned him over to the authorities. It was the sanhedrin that turned him over to the Roman authorities, and the Romans who tortured and executed him.

yep, and yet it was one of His very own closest people, who betrayed Him to those followers...think Judas Iscariot.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that an unsupported claim is not evidence.

and yet time and time again you have been shown that the claim is supported. Just because you choose to follow a different line of logic doesn't mean the supporting evidence doesn't exist, what it means is that the supporting evidence wasn't enough to convince you. Big difference.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point is that an unsupported claim is not evidence.

we're not talking about unsupported claims, were talking about claims that don't convince you....two big differences you would do well to make note of.

"ev·i·dence ( ev·i·dence ( v -d ns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence."
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see evident.]"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

That is correct. Most people do not use evidence to determine their beliefs.

I know what the definition of evidence is. What I lack is what you would accept as evidence. For example, in a court of law, eye witnesses are admittable as evidence. But on the forum only a few people are willing to accept eye witness accounts as anything at all, citing them as anecdotal and therefore of no value. Now that is not to say that in a court of law we can make a case of eye witness account, but it is to say that it does weigh into the case as evidence. So the question for you is what would you accept as evidence. In the day, photos and birth certificates did not exist, therefore to present such, would automatically tell us these eivdences were false. Writings did exist as did oral histories...etc. so what would you accept as evidence of Jesus existance/miracles....

I cannot provide what doesn’t exist. There is as much evidence, and no more, for Jesus, as there is for Zeus, Tammuz, Osiris, Bacchus, or Sol Invictus. Do you find that the evidence for the existence of Tammus is convincing, or would you dismiss it as unconvincing?

Let me ask you this, do you believe that Zeus was a "deity" that the people worshiped as a god? That would be the claim made...what evidence would tell you that Zues wasn't a deity worshiped by the people....remember, the claim of Zues isn't that he really existed, or that he was a god, the claim is that he was one of the deities that were worshipped. The entire existance issue is about who or what the people were worshipping, not if he was real or not. So if you don't believe that Zeus was a god worshipped at the time, there is nothing more we can talk about, the evidence clearly says that he was. Where or not he is a living deity, is another matter and requires testing beyond the evidence and includes who he is today.

The mosaic was evidence that people worshipped Jesus. Statues of Apollo are evidence that people worshipped Apollo. Mosaics and statues of Jesus and Apollo are not evidence that Jesus or Apollo actually existed, and were divine. See the difference?


　
　
　

I know the difference well, the question is do you understand the difference above. I was asked for evidence that Jesus existed. The historical evidence says that yes, he did. In fact, the evidence is strong enough that even other religions agree that he existed. Who he was and if he was the Christ is another matter altogether, requiring differenct lines of evidence. This is the problem with your objections, they show a lack of understanding of what you think you are asking for.

 

[Gregor Rayne]

If you can read this, help me:

I used to be proud to call myself a christian, but lately I have had concerns about the faith that worry me deeply.

A scenario that lead to my first questions:

There is a Jewish man, who never believes in Christ, and never will. Yet, everyday he embraces Christ like qualities. He is an excellent father, a pillar to his community, and a joy to pretty much anyone he comes in contact with. But, because he died and never accepted Christ, this man is supposed to burn in hell for all eternity.

On the other hand, there is a child molester, a serial child molester, who for 60 years of his life, molests children as his full time job. This man is responsible for the upheaval of possibly thousands of innocent childrens lives. However, on his deathbed, he has a full legitamate repentance, that leads to his salvation. Only by the grace of God is this man saved and goes to heaven as a result.

Skipping all 221 posts to respond to the OP: guilty =)

Anywho, you can take that 'hypothetical situation', or you can remove the doubt from your mind that it might never happen that way and consider the Holocaust. Hitler, the repenting Catholic goes the Heaven, 6,000,000 Jews, by definition not believe Jesus was God, go to Hell, some even after only knowing Hell their whole lives, being born and raised and killed in the death camps.

You can conjure up an explanation that will take you down more paths than you care to count, criss-crossing the entire way, making truths equal non-truths and reasons seem wrong and non-reaons seem right, all to point to how some mystical deity has everything under control. A mystical deity that cares enough to give us perceptory means but only enough to where he can reamain elusive to all the means he gave us to know him.

Or...

You can use your reason. And maybe there isn't a guy that has everything under control.

Help you? You're worried? You have all the means to be unworried and able to deal with any situation life gives you. It is your choice to be scared or not. I chose to be scared once. I was a Christian, had my doubts, doubts turned serious, cryed to God not to send me to Hell. Then I decided not to be scared anymore. I was tired of bending over backwards to MAKE him make sense to me. He never did anything. If he was there, he sat there. I made the points match, I made the dots connect, I made him make sense. He never gave me one answer. All he did was make me drunk. Drunk of faith and spirituality, to the point where I forgot about all my problems and pressing philisophical questions because someone else.... has it all under control. A drunk man is happy, but that doesn't mean he's right. I quit being drunk, I quit doing his job, I quit being scared.

And I feel a lot better now then I ever did as a Christian. Even in my happiest moments during my walk of faith, there was always, always, always a little, tiny, small voice that said... "what if you're wrong?". I don't have that voice now. I do things without being scared.

Having faith creates the need for faith. Lose one and you lose both. Darkest before the dawn. Corny cliche, yeah. True, yeah.

 

[Gracchus]

actually, you are wrong, before Paul was converted, he was a persecuter of those of faith. It's hard to persecute someone who doesn't exist isn't it?

By that reasoning, Catholics and Protestants never burned each other. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, or at least he claimed to be, evidently working for the religiously conservative temple sect, the Zadokites (Sadducees), and he was persecuting those of the extremely liberal Pharisaical sect, the Ebionites.

I wouldn't think so, especially since the writing describe him (Zeus) as a deity only.

But Zeus went around impregnating human women, and getting children from them. (e.g. Herakles or Hercules) Herakles, after death, was taken up to Olympus to sit among the gods. And the Greek gods were often portrayed as walking the Earth in human form. It is pretty difficult to impregnate a woman without the requisite fleshly mechanisms.

yep, and yet it was one of His very own closest people, who betrayed Him to those followers...think Judas Iscariot.

And think every anti-semitic Christian who ever lived. Think every Christian or Jew who does not love mercy, deal fairly, and walk humbly with God.

and yet time and time again you have been shown that the claim is supported. Just because you choose to follow a different line of logic doesn't mean the supporting evidence doesn't exist, what it means is that the supporting evidence wasn't enough to convince you. Big difference.

There is a big difference between unsupported fantastical claims and evidence that can be examined by everyone.

we're not talking about unsupported claims, were talking about claims that don't convince you....two big differences you would do well to make note of.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan

If I make the claim that I went to the moon on the back of Dumbo the Flying Elephant, you would probably dismiss it were it unsupported by some very convincing evidence, because it is an extraordinary claim, contrary to reason and experience.

I know what the definition of evidence is. What I lack is what you would accept as evidence. For example, in a court of law, eye witnesses are admittable as evidence. But on the forum only a few people are willing to accept eye witness accounts as anything at all, citing them as anecdotal and therefore of no value. Now that is not to say that in a court of law we can make a case of eye witness account, but it is to say that it does weigh into the case as evidence.

But eyewitness accounts are accepted as evidence. Of course the testimony must be sworn and witnessed and the eyewitness must be available for cross-examination. Lacking these elements, it is not eyewitness testimony. If the eyewitness is not testifying himself, if the testimony comes second hand, it is hearsay, and not admissable as evidence.

So the question for you is what would you accept as evidence. In the day, photos and birth certificates did not exist, therefore to present such, would automatically tell us these eivdences were false. Writings did exist as did oral histories...etc. so what would you accept as evidence of Jesus existance/miracles....

For reasons you have cited, it is unlikely that any convincing evidence could be produced. I once read a history by Gregory of Tours. He told of many miracles. Of course they always happened over in the next county, or a couple of decades previous.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that Zeus was a "deity" that the people worshiped as a god? That would be the claim made...what evidence would tell you that Zues wasn't a deity worshiped by the people....

There are statues, temples, and literature, still extant, produced by his worshippers. Jesus has these things too. Thus I see no reason to worship Zeus and discount Jesus, nor do I see a reason to discount Zeus and worship Jesus.

remember, the claim of Zues isn't that he really existed, or that he was a god, the claim is that he was one of the deities that were worshipped. The entire existance issue is about who or what the people were worshipping, not if he was real or not. So if you don't believe that Zeus was a god worshipped at the time, there is nothing more we can talk about, the evidence clearly says that he was. Where or not he is a living deity, is another matter and requires testing beyond the evidence and includes who he is today.

And we can agree on that. Jesus was and is worshipped, and that does not mean he is or ever was real.

I know the difference well, the question is do you understand the difference above. I was asked for evidence that Jesus existed. The historical evidence says that yes, he did. In fact, the evidence is strong enough that even other religions agree that he existed.

If you want to sell a man a Chevy you don't want to call him a fool for buying a Dodge. Because Islam accepts parts of Christian and Jewish scripture it was easier to attract converts from those religions. Just so, Christianity attributed to Jesus the miracles previously attributed to Tammuz and Osiris, and even set Jesus' birthday on the Solar New Year, when most celebrated the rebirth of the Sun.

Who he was and if he was the Christ is another matter altogether, requiring differenct lines of evidence. This is the problem with your objections, they show a lack of understanding of what you think you are asking for.

No, they show that you don't understand my objections to unsupported fantastical claims that you have referred to as evidence.

I have a great deal of respect for the Jewish rabbi, Yeshua, whom you call Jesus. I think that many of the precepts attributed to him are wise and beneficial and it makes no difference to me whether Jesus said them, or John the Baptist, or Brian Cohen. They stand on their own, without reference to authority.
I have little or no respect for the Christian religion, whose members have shown themselves as no better than any other band of raping, thieving, murdering banditti.

And I will certainly never subscribe to any religion that so obviously outrages my God-given reason. That would be blasphemously heretical.

I think we are done here, Razzleflabben. I understand you, but I have no expectation you will ever understand me.

 

[razzelflabben]

Skipping all 221 posts to respond to the OP: guilty =)

Anywho, you can take that 'hypothetical situation', or you can remove the doubt from your mind that it might never happen that way and consider the Holocaust. Hitler, the repenting Catholic goes the Heaven, 6,000,000 Jews, by definition not believe Jesus was God, go to Hell, some even after only knowing Hell their whole lives, being born and raised and killed in the death camps.

You can conjure up an explanation that will take you down more paths than you care to count, criss-crossing the entire way, making truths equal non-truths and reasons seem wrong and non-reaons seem right, all to point to how some mystical deity has everything under control. A mystical deity that cares enough to give us perceptory means but only enough to where he can reamain elusive to all the means he gave us to know him.

Or...

You can use your reason. And maybe there isn't a guy that has everything under control.

Help you? You're worried? You have all the means to be unworried and able to deal with any situation life gives you. It is your choice to be scared or not. I chose to be scared once. I was a Christian, had my doubts, doubts turned serious, cryed to God not to send me to Hell. Then I decided not to be scared anymore. I was tired of bending over backwards to MAKE him make sense to me. He never did anything. If he was there, he sat there. I made the points match, I made the dots connect, I made him make sense. He never gave me one answer. All he did was make me drunk. Drunk of faith and spirituality, to the point where I forgot about all my problems and pressing philisophical questions because someone else.... has it all under control. A drunk man is happy, but that doesn't mean he's right. I quit being drunk, I quit doing his job, I quit being scared.

And I feel a lot better now then I ever did as a Christian. Even in my happiest moments during my walk of faith, there was always, always, always a little, tiny, small voice that said... "what if you're wrong?". I don't have that voice now. I do things without being scared.

Having faith creates the need for faith. Lose one and you lose both. Darkest before the dawn. Corny cliche, yeah. True, yeah.

I would disagree, 1. evidence tells me that God is real and alive and loves us. So to claim that "You can use your reason. And maybe there isn't a guy that has everything under control." Is to make assumptions that are false, simply because one side doesn't reserve the right to reason and the other to no reason. Both sides can and do use reason, logic, and evidence, it is the conclusions that differ. and 2. If you had seen the God of the bible when you were a Christian, you would not have feared....trust me, I have had a great deal of reasons to fear in my life. If you are a christian and still fear, your missing Christ. Even the bible tells us that perfect love (Christ love) casts out all fear. Bottom line, religion/religious beliefs are not the equal to a relationship with God.

 

[razzelflabben]

By that reasoning, Catholics and Protestants never burned each other. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, or at least he claimed to be, evidently working for the religiously conservative temple sect, the Zadokites (Sadducees), and he was persecuting those of the extremely liberal Pharisaical sect, the Ebionites.

your claim was that Paul started christianity and I showed you how that was impossible. How could Paul start chrisitanity that he was persecuting before he converted and advanced the beliefs?

But Zeus went around impregnating human women, and getting children from them.

but he was never claimed to be human...so how could we prove he was a man in flesh walking around this earth, if the claim that he was wasn't even put forth?

(e.g. Herakles or Hercules) Herakles, after death, was taken up to Olympus to sit among the gods. And the Greek gods were often portrayed as walking the Earth in human form. It is pretty difficult to impregnate a woman without the requisite fleshly mechanisms.

Zeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing I can find shows that anyone claimed Zeus to be human. In fact, that would be like claiming God the Father was a human being, and we have proof because He impregnated Mary to have His child Jesus the Christ. Only problem, there is never a claim that God the Father was human, just as there is no claim that Zeus was a human. So how then would we go about proving that he was something that was never claimed that he was? That is the question you must answer for this discussion to move forward.

And think every anti-semitic Christian who ever lived. Think every Christian or Jew who does not love mercy, deal fairly, and walk humbly with God.

yep, the religious....

There is a big difference between unsupported fantastical claims and evidence that can be examined by everyone.

exactly

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan

If I make the claim that I went to the moon on the back of Dumbo the Flying Elephant, you would probably dismiss it were it unsupported by some very convincing evidence, because it is an extraordinary claim, contrary to reason and experience.

but if, it were supported by evidence and tested according to the claims and the test evidence truth, reason would dictate I must believe it based on logical conclusions. Which is the point. Just because our minds might think something is impossible doesn't mean it is, sometimes, the evidence shows the impossible to be possible. There was a time when space travel was thought to be impossible, but today, it isn't even big enough news to report...does that make it impossible because we used to believe it was just that, impossible. What of modern medical advancements, things we once believed impossible suddenly are possible...shall we ignore the evidence simply because our minds can't conceive it as possible?

But eyewitness accounts are accepted as evidence. Of course the testimony must be sworn and witnessed and the eyewitness must be available for cross-examination. Lacking these elements, it is not eyewitness testimony. If the eyewitness is not testifying himself, if the testimony comes second hand, it is hearsay, and not admissable as evidence.

be careful, I am not talking about those biblical witnesses, but rather modern day people sitting on the other end of your computer connection, that testify to you the miracles of a living God, but instead of accepting the testimony, it is cross examined then when found to be without flaw, dismissed as anecdotal. It is all part of the evidence! It all adds up, each piece of evidence weighing in differently without question, but it is all evidence, from the bible, to non biblical evidence to modern day testimony, it's all evidence.

For reasons you have cited, it is unlikely that any convincing evidence could be produced. I once read a history by Gregory of Tours. He told of many miracles. Of course they always happened over in the next county, or a couple of decades previous.

I know some that happened in this country, but that is a different topic. The reason you will never find any convincing evidence is because you can't even list what you would accept as evidence from 2000 years ago. If you cannot accept anything as evidence except what doesn't exist for anyone of the time period, then we cannot evidence anyones existance from the time period, and we might as well stop now. If on the other hand, you say, 'hum, X, Y, and Z can exist for the time period, if X, Y, and/or Z were presented, I would consider it evidence', then we would move on. So until you can provide what you would consider evidence of the time, we can't move on.

There are statues, temples, and literature, still extant, produced by his worshippers. Jesus has these things too. Thus I see no reason to worship Zeus and discount Jesus, nor do I see a reason to discount Zeus and worship Jesus.

Didn't suggest we should, did suggest that before someone chooses anything to believe, they should throughally explore the evidence and see which demonstrates itself to be truth and which does not.

And we can agree on that. Jesus was and is worshipped, and that does not mean he is or ever was real.

actually, worshipping Jesus is a misunderstanding of what He taught, but that is off topic. Moving on

If you want to sell a man a Chevy you don't want to call him a fool for buying a Dodge. Because Islam accepts parts of Christian and Jewish scripture it was easier to attract converts from those religions. Just so, Christianity attributed to Jesus the miracles previously attributed to Tammuz and Osiris, and even set Jesus' birthday on the Solar New Year, when most celebrated the rebirth of the Sun.
No, they show that you don't understand my objections to unsupported fantastical claims that you have referred to as evidence.

actually, your confusing religious symbols and such, things that come from man with the things that come from God, but that is a common mistake.

I have a great deal of respect for the Jewish rabbi, Yeshua, whom you call Jesus. I think that many of the precepts attributed to him are wise and beneficial and it makes no difference to me whether Jesus said them, or John the Baptist, or Brian Cohen. They stand on their own, without reference to authority.

actually, according to the Jews (except for christian Jews) Jesus was no different than John the Baptist or Brian Cohen. so I don't understand your point, it really seems you don't understand what you are talking about but, how can I say that without offending you?

I have little or no respect for the Christian religion, whose members have shown themselves as no better than any other band of raping, thieving, murdering banditti.

on this we agree...amen....bravo...right on....

And I will certainly never subscribe to any religion that so obviously outrages my God-given reason. That would be blasphemously heretical.

again....amen....bravo...right on...etc. which is why Jesus teachings, the biblical teaching is that we are to be in the world but not of it.....

I think we are done here, Razzleflabben. I understand you, but I have no expectation you will ever understand me.

I'm sure I won't understand you when you don't seem to understand what you proclaim....I understand what you think you are saying, it's common beliefs, but it isn't what you are saying, nor does it show logical conclusions from you. It's as if (no insult intended) you are just quoting what you have heard and think is wise and are not thinking it through. Personally, I don't know how to understand that because it doesn't demonstrate what you know, or believe, but what another understands or believes. I am interested in what you believe, what you understand....for example, the whole thing with the Jews...the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Christ yet you claim that they worshipped Jesus as a deity...they didn't, the belief that Jesus was the Christ came much later in history, and was shunned by Jews of the time and even today. If you don't know this, then your comments are someone elses, your understanding is someone elses.

 

[Tynan]

. . . it helps to understand that death (eternal separation from God/aka hell) are the consequences of sin, not the punishment. This is important to understand if you want to understand hell. Found in the book of Gen. we see that the consequence of sin, is death. I like to compare it to a child that is told not to run out into the street. The kid does and is hit by a car, did I sentence the child to the pain and most likely death that will incur by instructing them to not run into the street, or is the pain and likely death the result of thier disobedience, the consequence that comes from running out into the street? Man was warned, man didn't heed the warning and now, suffers the consequence of his sin.

"did I sentence the child to the pain and most likely death that will incur by instructing them to not run into the street"

If you designed and created the child knowing full well what it would do in the future, then - yes - you did sentence the child to death beneath the wheels of a car.

And further to that, not only did you know what was to happen to your creation but you actively created the child so that it would die beneath the wheels of a car - when you had the power to create a child that would not die beneath the wheels of a car.

so knowing that when I have a child, he will at one time or another disobey me and my rules, maybe getting hurt in the process, so I am guilty of their pain because I chose to have children....

Without pointing out the naked abuse of the shared metaphor and the comic attempt at equivocation - yes, if you created an agent knowing what it would do and the consequences of those actions - you would of course be responsible.

God in this case is no different, He didn't create man to force him to be perfect, but rather because of Love. Just like we choose to have children we do so out of love, knowing full well that someday, they will disobey, someday they will defy us, someday, they will break our hearts, we do it anyway, because love is of far more value than forcing someone to be perfect.

This silly analogy fails - of course - on some fairly basic levels - if you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian 'hell' conceit in any of it's literal or modern forms.

So let's put this in terms of a parent/child relationship since that is where you started it....

I think you will find that it is your own anaogy that you are employing here: razzelflabben: "I like to compare it to a child that is told not to run out into the street."

. . . as a parent, I can force my child to stay in my sight at all times 24/7 I can even tie the child to my arm so that he is never more than a couple feet away from me....in our society, that would be called child abuse and would result in everyone being miserable. So why then would it be a good thing for God to do if it is considered evil for man?

Because the conditions are different.

Very different.

You would, would you not "tie the child to my arm so that he is never more than a couple feet away from me" if he was very young and the pair of you were traversing a perilously high ravine ledge with a loose foothold and unknown dangers ?

Of course you would.

The curse placed on the slipped foot of the untethered child in Christianity is an eternity of pain.

 

[razzelflabben]

Without pointing out the naked abuse of the shared metaphor and the comic attempt at equivocation - yes, if you created an agent knowing what it would do and the consequences of those actions - you would of course be responsible.

sorry to see that you don't appreciate or respect children anymore than that.

This silly analogy fails - of course - on some fairly basic levels - if you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian 'hell' conceit in any of it's literal or modern forms.

not if you subscribe to the biblical concept.

I think you will find that it is your own anaogy that you are employing here: razzelflabben: "I like to compare it to a child that is told not to run out into the street."

[/quote]

Because the conditions are different.

Very different.

You would, would you not "tie the child to my arm so that he is never more than a couple feet away from me" if he was very young and the pair of you were traversing a perilously high ravine ledge with a loose foothold and unknown dangers ?[/quote] you have an unfortunately poor view of life in general as well, I'm really sorry for you.

Of course you would.

The curse placed on the slipped foot of the untethered child in Christianity is an eternity of pain.

your missing what the bible says about heaven and hell, and applying what the traditions of the church say in it's place.

 

[Gregor Rayne]

I would disagree, 1. evidence tells me that God is real and alive and loves us. So to claim that "You can use your reason. And maybe there isn't a guy that has everything under control." Is to make assumptions that are false, simply because one side doesn't reserve the right to reason and the other to no reason. Both sides can and do use reason, logic, and evidence, it is the conclusions that differ. and 2. If you had seen the God of the bible when you were a Christian, you would not have feared....trust me, I have had a great deal of reasons to fear in my life. If you are a christian and still fear, your missing Christ. Even the bible tells us that perfect love (Christ love) casts out all fear. Bottom line, religion/religious beliefs are not the equal to a relationship with God.

If the religious side did use logic and evidence, I would agree with you that both sides use reason. Religion is based on a faith element. I don't see the reason in religion. Perhaps there is evidence that you have observed that I have not. But, to prove God, religious folk create very complicated and contradictory arguments to try and justify why god is complete indistinguishable from nothingness. And, if it is personal testimony we are discussing here, perhaps you have had an experience that would warrant your faith and your belief. I have not had such an experience.

If you had seen the God of the bible when you were a Christian, you would not have feared....trust me

A couple of years ago, you couldn't have quoted me better.

 

[razzelflabben]

If the religious side did use logic and evidence, I would agree with you that both sides use reason. Religion is based on a faith element.

only partially. Well, let me correct myself...religion is based on faith, and traditions...followers of the Way, however, have evidence to back their beliefs.

I don't see the reason in religion.

I would have to agree with you here.

Perhaps there is evidence that you have observed that I have not. But, to prove God, religious folk create very complicated and contradictory arguments to try and justify why god is complete indistinguishable from nothingness.

that is a religious problem, and one I also have a problem with.

And, if it is personal testimony we are discussing here, perhaps you have had an experience that would warrant your faith and your belief. I have not had such an experience.

it's multiple levels of evidence, including but not even close to limiting it to person experience.

A couple of years ago, you couldn't have quoted me better.

yet apparently, you saw the God others wanted you to see....which, would scare me....

 

[Gregor Rayne]

only partially. Well, let me correct myself...religion is based on faith, and traditions...followers of the Way, however, have evidence to back their beliefs.

it's multiple levels of evidence, including but not even close to limiting it to person experience.

This intrigues me. From my perspective, this is why Christian believers... 'believe': They read it out of the Bible. Now, the Bible is hardly a credible source. No one to this day can trace the origins of the Bible firmly and absolutely. You can't show who wrote it, who put the canon together, when it was written, when it was assembled. For evangelicals that are calling the lost to their faith, this proves to be a very problematic situation. Perhaps you clear a misunderstanding I have on this issue? If not, then would you care to explain how any belief your denomination holds doesn't correlate to the Bible in someway?

If you don't believe because you read it out of the Bible, then you believe because you had a spiritual encounter. The Holy Spirit filled your heart, you saw God, you felt Jesus presence, what have you. But this is limiting for you? What then did convince you to turn from your former state of whatever to Christian?

 

[razzelflabben]

This intrigues me. From my perspective, this is why Christian believers... 'believe': They read it out of the Bible. Now, the Bible is hardly a credible source. No one to this day can trace the origins of the Bible firmly and absolutely. You can't show who wrote it, who put the canon together, when it was written, when it was assembled. For evangelicals that are calling the lost to their faith,

I don't know what you mean by this comment, "calling the lost to their faith" are you talking about those who "scare" people into believing?

this proves to be a very problematic situation. Perhaps you clear a misunderstanding I have on this issue?

again, not sure what you are "misunderstanding"...a belief in the bible should, if don't biblically, be based on several lines of evidence. 1. biblical evidence 2. non biblical sources 3. "eye witness" testimonies 4. personal experiences. All these together add to some pretty strong beliefs and some incredibly strong viable conclusions.

If not, then would you care to explain how any belief your denomination holds doesn't correlate to the Bible in someway?

now this is a bit tricky because 1. I'm not sure what your asking and 2. the denominate I am now attending and my personal denomination are two different things, and to complicate matters even further, my family history (married) is a different denominate yet.

So let me see, the issue we are talking about is evidence and faith....traditional is not the same thing as evidence of something...

If you don't believe because you read it out of the Bible, then you believe because you had a spiritual encounter. The Holy Spirit filled your heart, you saw God, you felt Jesus presence, what have you. But this is limiting for you? What then did convince you to turn from your former state of whatever to Christian?

You want to know for me personally?

Personally, I made a logical conclusion based on the evidence, that there had to be a supernatural being....honestly I made an assumption as to who that was based the culture I live in....from there I began to explore that assumption based on three main things, 1. available evidence 2. everyday test, such as (such as meaning not limited to only the example given)are the things recorded as belonging to God truth based on the evidence of this life like, does love transform live, is love a better way. and 3. testing that out...an example, the bible tells us that if we are about God's business, nothing can harm us. One day I was in a situation where I was about God's business, the other person involved, got angery, tried to stab me with a knife, but a force she describes as the force of a hand held her arm till she was ready to let go...there was no possibility of anyone else able to stop her arm...this example is the third line of evidence.

Does that help, I'm not confident I understand you question in light of the discussion, so if I missed it, please let me know.

 

[Tynan]

Without pointing out the naked abuse of the shared metaphor and the comic attempt at equivocation - yes, if you created an agent knowing what it would do and the consequences of those actions - you would of course be responsible.

sorry to see that you don't appreciate or respect children anymore than that.

Don't be sorry, I appreciate your apology, but I would prefer you understood.

your missing what the bible says about heaven and hell, and applying what the traditions of the church say in it's place.

What does the bible say with regard to those who die 'unsaved' (or whatever interpretation of that particular conceit you have been tutored in.) ?

 

[razzelflabben]

Don't be sorry, I appreciate your apology, but I would prefer you understood.



What does the bible say with regard to those who die 'unsaved' (or whatever interpretation of that particular conceit you have been tutored in.) ?

"unsaved", I'm guessing here you are referring to the non believer. See, biblically speaking, our salvation is about belief, not about actions. So let's talk about this just a moment, Okay? I heard a Rabbi say once, that for the Jew, sin was like temporary insanity, because if you really understand who God is, you would be in sane to disobey Him....I think this is a great discription of what belief is all about. Belief is really about grasping who God is and accepting that as truth. The person who really believes, then is compelled by the Holy Spirit within to repent, to testify, to obey, etc. but that is why the requirement is belief, because all the other things are God's.

Now that being said, many people will tell you that you must do this or that to be saved, but according to scripture, belief is all that is required, the rest is in God's capable hands.

As to what happens to those who do not believe. Unfortunately, they will know death. You see, the consequence of sin (that is disobedience to God) is death. God's nature (as best as I can tell from scripture) is that He cannot look upon sin...kind of like the very nature of man is that if he stops breathing, he dies. It isn't a choice, it's just the nature of the thing. God's nature is so that He can't look upon sin. Therefore, the consequence of sin, not the choice, but the result of sin, is death...best I can tell both physical and spiritual death. The believer has his sins covered by the blood Jesus shed. (Jesus being without sin, therefore His blood, covers or hides our sin so that God can look upon us, fellowship with us) The non believer does not have this covering and therefore will not face the consequences of their sin. The non believer will not see life...both the abundant life in the physical and the eternal life of the spirit.

Hope that answers your question