How did you arrive at Christianity?

[bhsmte]

The Bible is an overall message and the culmination effect of it just won me over.. I found the Bible accurately revealed the human condition and give a view of a perfect God and How that perfect God was able to overcome in an awesome way the tragedy of the sabotage of His creation..

So i cannot point to just one point here or one verse there in the Bible.. It's the Bible as a whole that moved me..

Nothing wrong with that, if it works for you.

 

[radhead]

It's genetic. Most people who "believe" in Christianity were indoctrinated as children. Not to mention that most people inherit beliefs, fears, etc, also through the genes. So when they hear that the Bible is a "holy" book to be feared, they don't have to question it. They know it.

 

[StTruth]

It's genetic. Most people who "believe" in Christianity were indoctrinated as children. Not to mention that most people inherit beliefs, fears, etc, also through the genes. So when they hear that the Bible is a "holy" book to be feared, they don't have to question it. They know it.

Absolutely true that indoctrination is a religious requirement for us Christians. I was baptised very soon after I was born and a few months before that, the terrible attack happened in New York. People became more religious. But one religious obligation every parent has is to teach his children the faith, the Creeds, the Prayers, etc. I knew these things even before I knew how to run. Maybe it's because my parents became more religious after that horrible Muslim terrorist carnage because I think they are not such terribly religious people but the fact is I was still taught these things. We don't normally see these things as indoctrination but it really is.

St Truth

 

[radhead]

Absolutely true that indoctrination is a religious requirement for us Christians. I was baptised very soon after I was born and a few months before that, the terrible attack happened in New York. People became more religious. But one religious obligation every parent has is to teach his children the faith, the Creeds, the Prayers, etc. I knew these things even before I knew how to run. Maybe it's because my parents became more religious after that horrible Muslim terrorist carnage because I think they are not such terribly religious people but the fact is I was still taught these things. We don't normally see these things as indoctrination but it really is.

St Truth

Those attacks are usually done by oppressed people who feel that are attacking "oppressors". In this case the oppressor is a Christian nation full of fat and happy people who have no regard for the poor. Christian parents indoctrinating children are basically these people teaching their children that is okay to be an oppressor.

Even though that is as far from the message of Jesus as is possible to be. I see most Muslims as being a lot closer to the real Jesus.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hi Ed1wolf,

Thank you for your response. You have misunderstood me. Biblical cosmology is the same as ancient Hebrew cosmology which is flawed and for a good reason too since ancient Jews knew nothing beyond their very primitive observation. Let's look at Gen 1 more closely. I'll use the KJV (you can use any version) just so that the fundamentalists won't raise unnecessary objections.

No, ancient Hebrew cosmology was not revealed by God only biblical cosmology was.

st: Gen 1 says this:

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

So, what have we here? Let's not add to the word of God but let's read it and apply it faithfully. First, God wants to divide water from water. He made a firmament. You say I was wrong and the firmament can mean a space and not just a sheet. After reading the word of God more carefully, I admit you may be right. So God put the firmament (space) to separate the water that is under the firmament from the water that is above the firmament. Since I'm using the KJV, God called the firmament 'heaven'. But that doesn't matter. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. Names should not stump us here. But let's note that when 'heaven' appears in Gen 1, the verse makes it clear that it's the firmament (or sky in some other versions).

No, if you look at the original Hebrew it appears that this is the separation of the atmosphere from the water on the surface such as the seas from the water in the atmosphere, ie clouds. The open space between the two is one of the two physical heavens which the Hebrew word means "sky". The other is outer space.

st: Let's read on.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This makes things clearer. When God said he wanted to separate water from water, the water under the firmament or heaven or sky is the seas. Although it's not stated here, presumably, the water above the firmament must be the clouds. But whatever this water is, note that it's ABOVE the firmament or heaven or sky.

What did God place on the firmament?

Verse 17 says this:
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth

Note that 'them' refers to the sun and the moon, if you read the preceding verses. So, God set the sun and the moon on the firmament. You must picture this in your mind because this is precisely what ancient Hebrew cosmology is about and the Bible affirms it. The seas are the water below the firmament. There is water ABOVE the firmament. In the firmament itself we have the sun and the moon. Mind you, the water is above the firmament.

No, it says He set them on the firmament of HEAVEN using the Hebrew word for the highest heaven, ie the troposphere and beyond to outer space. This can be seen in Psalm 148 where this is explained a little clearer.

st: Anybody who lives in the 21st century can immediately spot the flaw of such cosmology. Apologists have tried to salvage this obvious error but apart from making up additional verses, they are sunk.

Cheers,

St Truth

No, everything becomes clearer when you look at the Hebrew.

 

[StTruth]

Those attacks are usually done by oppressed people who feel that are attacking "oppressors". In this case the oppressor is a Christian nation full of fat and happy people who have no regard for the poor. Christian parents indoctrinating children are basically these people teaching their children that is okay to be an oppressor.

Even though that is as far from the message of Jesus as is possible to be. I see most Muslims as being a lot closer to the real Jesus.

Then you don't understand Islam and you don't understand the Quran and the Sunnah as revealed in the Hadiths. When people say Islam is a religion of peace, they usually don't know Islam at all. I have read up on the Quran and the Hadiths. But this is off-topic. This thread is not for me to explain the meaning and teachings of Islam and why I have no doubt it's WRONG.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[StTruth]

No, ancient Hebrew cosmology was not revealed by God only biblical cosmology was.

What the Bible teaches in Gen 1 is precisely the same as ancient Hebrew cosmology.

No, if you look at the original Hebrew it appears that this is the separation of the atmosphere from the water on the surface such as the seas from the water in the atmosphere, ie clouds. The open space between the two is one of the two physical heavens which the Hebrew word means "sky". The other is outer space.

I have read that before. It's obviously a fabrication done by someone who is intent on defending the 'science' in the Bible. There is no such thing at all in the Bible of whatever language. There is never any distinction placed on the word for firmament or sky or heaven and the Hebrew word is exactly the same. This distinction does not exist.

No, it says He set them on the firmament of HEAVEN using the Hebrew word for the highest heaven, ie the troposphere and beyond to outer space. This can be seen in Psalm 148 where this is explained a little clearer.

As I have said, this idea is added on. It's not a faithful reading of the original Hebrew text. It's an apologetic addition to cover up biblical errors. There are a lot of such apologetic cover-ups. An apologist is trained to come up with cover-ups. But when you read the Bible with an open mind and it doesn't matter if you read it in English or Hebrew, it will be plain to someone who hasn't yet made up his mind to defend the Bible at all costs that the understanding of cosmology is flawed.

No, everything becomes clearer when you look at the Hebrew.

That is not correct. See my comment above.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[radhead]

Then you don't understand Islam and you don't understand the Quran and the Sunnah as revealed in the Hadiths. When people say Islam is a religion of peace, they usually don't know Islam at all. I have read up on the Quran and the Hadiths. But this is off-topic. This thread is not for me to explain the meaning and teachings of Islam and why I have no doubt it's WRONG.

Cheers,

St Truth

What you are saying is that it's okay for Christian countries to attack Muslim ones, and to help other countries do the same. But that it is wrong for the Muslim countries to defend themselves against the attacks.

 

[possibletarian]

Why are you a Christian? Why aren't you a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu? Why aren't you an atheist? A humanist? Even a Satanist? What about Christianity makes you believe it's true? I honestly cannot understand how people can be so sure of Christianity when they're literally atheistic about every single religion except theirs. So, please explain. For those who don't remember me, you are assured that this is not a trap, though I am eager to discuss.

Hi skalle

I'm not so sure the 'when they are literally atheistic about every single religion except theirs' is really a good argument.

Like myself and likely you, what makes an atheist/agnostic an atheist is the lack of belief in the existence of any being that people commonly understand to be a god.

While it is likely many do not believe in the existence of other 'gods' It is feasible for a theist even a monotheist to believe in other supernatural beings that demanding worship, and many believe at least in one other powerful supernatural being and opposer to god, Satan.

What makes a monotheist a monotheist is withholding worship from all but one god, in other words it is possible for them to believe (with perhaps a demonic inference) in a supernatural being called Zeus or Thor but to withhold worship without breaking the boundaries that define them as a monotheist.

In fact it could be said that the command "Thou shall have no other gods before Me" presupposes other beings that would distract and demand worship.

I do however think the question 'why do you worship your god, while ignoring all the others' is a good question.

 

[possibletarian]

I will give two examples of the scientific evidence for Christianity. First, the universe has been pretty much been proven to be an effect and therefore requires a cause

Absolutely

and in fact a personal cause because purposes exist in the universe and we know that purposes only come from personal beings.

What fact, What purpose., and what is a personal being ?

So this eliminates flying unicorns as the creator of the existence because they are not persons they are horses.

Again you would have to first show purpose.

Second, out of all the major sacred books and religions only the Christianity and the Bible teaches that the universe had a definite beginning and was created out of nothing detectable.

It does teach that what we see has a beginning, as do other holy books

What do you mean by 'nothing detectable' do you mean out of or by what we don't know.

Both of which have been confirmed by the BB theory.

Without first proving a purpose and a god the genesis story is not compatible with the big bang theory, not in any honest way.

From history, the resurrection of Christ has better documentary evidence than Caesars Gallic Wars.

Ceasres Gallic wars don't have people walking on water, thousands of dead people coming back to life, people floating around on clouds..etc etc. or do you mean more people wrote about it ? outside the fantasy of the bible is there much evidence at all for the supernatural claims ?

Philosophically, the very nature of the universe, ie that it is a diversity within a unity,

What does that even mean ?

point to the Christian God as its creator because we know that most creators imprint aspects of themselves in their creations. And only the Christian God is a true diversity within a unity, ie the Trinity.

What does that mean ?

And these are just a few of the evidences for Christianity in the three areas of science, history and philosophy.

You really believe that? Without first presuming a god, and not only that the Christian god all these arguments are meaningless. A rather circular way to go about things, it's one of those ways of thinking that make sense if you already believe they will and explain everything.
But to someone actually looking for evidence in the real sense, they explain nothing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I couldn't care less about who WROTE the new testament. What is evil is PROMOTING it as the literal truth.

People that have promoted them as the literal truth have produced almost everything good about Western Civilization, including providing the rational basis for the right to free speech that you are presently exercising on this website.

rad:The original writers could have been writing satire, social criticism, entertainment, fiction, poetry, prose, etc. There is nothing wrong with any of that. But don't blame them for what others have done with their writings.

They were writing History and see above about what others have done with their writings. Of course, since we are all sinners some so-called Christians have taken the words out of context and done evil things in the name of Christ, I am not denying that. But overall the good that has been done by Christians and Christianity has FAR outweighed the bad.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not true. Bellum Gallicum was penned by Julius Caesar(well, the vast majority of it).

Yes, but the oldest extant copies are 900 years after the events. But as I stated above parts of the NT were written less than five years after the events.

ds: We also have supporting, contemporary written evidence plus a good chunk of archeological evidence that matches the written records, like, for example, the digs at the site of the siege of Alesia.

We also have supporting contemporary written evidence for the NT. I was only referring to the documentary evidence not the archaeological evidence. There are many historical events that we only have documentary evidence for, for various reasons, such as the relative obscurity of the location and small scale of the events and persons involved.

 

[radhead]

People that have promoted them as the literal truth have produced almost everything good about Western Civilization, including providing the rational basis for the right to free speech that you are presently exercising on this website.


They were writing History and see above about what others have done with their writings. Of course, since we are all sinners some so-called Christians have taken the words out of context and done evil things in the name of Christ, I am not denying that. But overall the good that has been done by Christians and Christianity has FAR outweighed the bad.

EdWolf, you had better provide some evidence or at least facts supporting those claims. Otherwise you stand as a liar.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hi Ed1wolf,

Thanks for your post. I will, with your leave, break it down for easy response.



It is very easy for us Christians to make the mistake of comparing our religious record with something like Roman wars and then we jumble up everything in the process. First it is not correct to say that the first record of Caesar's wars was made 900 years after the event.

I didn't say it was the first record, I said it is the oldest copy of the first record. We have much older copies of the NT much closer to the original events with no major differences between thousands of copies.

st: But I don't want to miss the issue and argue on something quite different. I will leave Caesar's wars aside and concentrate on our Holy Scripture. In the accounts written of Alexander the Great, for example, there are a lot of testimonies of his superhuman abilities. Alexander the Great was born of a virgin too, like some of the Greek gods and goddesses. Pallas Athene, I recall (I may be wrong about the particular goddess), was born from the head of Zeus after he had a massive migraine attack and I'm not kidding. LOL. I learnt that in Classical studies in school. But you see, historians do not take Alexander the Great's superhuman qualities as history. We all know that the ancients have a propensity of seeing the supernatural and mixing it up with reality.
But what Christians want historians to do (and none of them will unless of course they happen to be Christians as well) is to take the supernatural tall tales in our Scriptural record as history. That is not right. If you say the Gospels tell us that there was a man named Pontius Pilate. That's fine. You say crucifixion took place as recorded in the Gospels and that's history, that's OK. But if you say Christ rose from the dead, that's not history. That's religion. Just as Alexander the Great's superhuman abilities and birth are not history but myth.

Well there are two main reasons why historians don't accept the supernatural stories about ATG. First, most historians are philosophical Naturalists and therefore don't accept the supernatural a priori. Second, the other reason they don't accept them is because they were written later and are not in the oldest documents closer to the events. The closer the documents are to the events generally they are the most accurate. And we have the NT gospels for which there is evidence that they were written within 40 years of the events of Christ's life, so the supernatural events are more likely to be real.

st: Another mistake you make is to say that 1 Cor 15:3-8 is an ancient hymn written no more than 5 years after Jesus' death. That is absolutely incorrect. Scholars say that those verse are PROBABLY a hymn or creed that was common at the time. Again this is conjecture but it may be true. But there is NOTHING in these verses alone to lead anyone to the conclusion that it was written within 5 years of Jesus' death. Anyone who entertains such a view does so out of his religious faith and it has nothing to do with fact or evidence. It may be a common creed recited by Christians at the time of writing. I'm not surprised there would be such a creed. The tenets of the creed were formed by that time.

No, most scholars including non-Christian ones believe that this hymn/creed was written within five years of the events. The evidence is in the older greek words used. It uses Peter's older name Cephas and calls the disciples "the Twelve" these terms were generally not used 20 and 30 years later. And there are other older greek terms and language used according to scholars.

st: I mentioned hundreds of years to explain one argument Christians sometimes use. They say there are so many thousand manuscripts of the New Testament compared to some other historical document. Ergo, the NT must be authentic and correct. First, the manuscripts that we have are all quite recent. The earliest manuscripts date back to hundreds of years after the actual writing. I've seen some of the earliest manuscripts in the British library. One dated 400AD (that's 400 years after the event!!!) cannot even be called a manuscript. It's not even a page. It's only a fragment of a page consisting of no more than one and a half verses. But Christian statisticians will call that one early manuscript and chalk it up in our arsenal of available manuscripts.

No, actually we have part of the Gospel of John from 125 AD. But the point is not how old the manuscripts are but when the originals were written and we have textual evidence that they were written within 40 years of the events and there are no evidence of any significant editing in them for 2000 years.

st: I have looked up all your posts on this thread and I don't see evidence for God. Every single post that you have posted has been answered by me. Perhaps I missed one of them? But the thread is quite short. Which particular evidence are you referring to that I have not been able to show that (a) it's not really evidence or (b) it's unreliable evidence that does not at all support our God proposition. I admit sometimes I can miss posts so it will be great if you draw my attention to the evidence. I have been asking for evidence for a long time and I sure don't want to miss any that is presented to me. It's very hard to get a Christian to present his evidence and when you say you have given me evidence, I welcome it with open arms and I sure don't want to miss it.

Thanks.

Cheers,

St Truth

Did you see my post about the BB theory and the law of causality? The universe is an effect and needs a cause. And by studying the effect, ie the universe, we can determine the cause. For example, the universe contains personal beings. And we know from all of history that only persons can produce the personal, therefore the cause must be a Person.

 

[mindlight]

Why are you a Christian? Why aren't you a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu? Why aren't you an atheist? A humanist? Even a Satanist? What about Christianity makes you believe it's true? I honestly cannot understand how people can be so sure of Christianity when they're literally atheistic about every single religion except theirs. So, please explain. For those who don't remember me, you are assured that this is not a trap, though I am eager to discuss.

I grew up in a Christian home and read the bible regularly from an early age and prayed also. Gods presence was obvious and unquestioned. It was a surprise to me and a shock to discover people believed other things as a teenager and going to university.

So I explored these other religions and worldviews also. Especially: Islam, Marxism, Nietzsche, New Age. None of these were that satisfactory nor did any compare with Christianity.

The two essential qualities missing from these other religions were LOVE of the quality and credibility I knew from Christianity and TRUTH. The alternate answers were unsatisfactory or incomplete or incredible.

Over the years as a Christian I have had innumerable opportunities to revisit my conclusions about other religions as I have been in continual discussion with their adherents. But while my understanding has matured the basic rejection of their lies, uncleaness, blasphemy and loveless emptiness has not changed.

 

[StTruth]

Did you see my post about the BB theory and the law of causality? The universe is an effect and needs a cause. And by studying the effect, ie the universe, we can determine the cause. For example, the universe contains personal beings. And we know from all of history that only persons can produce the personal, therefore the cause must be a Person.

Hi Ed1wolf,

Yes I saw your post but it's the usual argument I have seen many times online and on youtube. I've seen Craig using the same argument. I've seen Ravi Zacharias and the felon Dinesh D'Souza using this same argument but as you should know, it's flawed.

What possibletarian responded in post # 50 is highly relevant but you have not countered what he said. What he is showing you is that when you use those arguments, you are effectively pegging one presupposition upon another. It's done so subtly that you don't even realise it yourself. I have no doubt that you are perfectly honest but I really believe you are mistaken. Go through what he says in post # 50 and you will see why he asks those questions.

The other problem I have with the use of the usual argument whether it's cosmological or whatever is the argument can only work for the establishment of a Deist God. It fails when it is used for our Theistic God who has all the biblical attributes of love, omnipotence and a keen interest in human affairs. What many of these apologists do is to use the arguments for a Deist God and then slyly slips in our God as if our God could just easily stand in place of the Deist God that they have been arguing for. I'm not saying these arguments show the existence of the Deist God. Not even that. But I believe a case can be made for the existence of a Deist God who did only the creation through the Big Bang and after that goes into severe retirement. But it can't be used for our God who intervenes too much and who loves us and who is Almighty. Reality militates against the existence of such an entity.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Ed1wolf]

What the Bible teaches in Gen 1 is precisely the same as ancient Hebrew cosmology.

No, fraid not. The Bible never teaches that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth and etc.

st: I have read that before. It's obviously a fabrication done by someone who is intent on defending the 'science' in the Bible. There is no such thing at all in the Bible of whatever language. There is never any distinction placed on the word for firmament or sky or heaven and the Hebrew word is exactly the same. This distinction does not exist.

No, there are two different Hebrew words "raqia" and "shamayim". Also Psalm 148 helps us to understand the distinction also. It talks about Genesis 1 and refers to the highest heavens above the waters above the sky, ie the clouds, which is outer space.

st: As I have said, this idea is added on. It's not a faithful reading of the original Hebrew text. It's an apologetic addition to cover up biblical errors. There are a lot of such apologetic cover-ups. An apologist is trained to come up with cover-ups. But when you read the Bible with an open mind and it doesn't matter if you read it in English or Hebrew, it will be plain to someone who hasn't yet made up his mind to defend the Bible at all costs that the understanding of cosmology is flawed.

No, studying the Hebrew helps us to understand the deeper things of scripture even non-Christian scholars agree that understanding the original languages brings out many things that you cannot see in English translations. Also, God's other book, Nature, helps us to understand the Bible better when it talks about creation or nature. The bible itself tells us to study nature to learn more about Him. For a Christian you don't seem to be very biblically literate.

st: That is not correct. See my comment above.

Cheers,

St Truth

No, it is correct, see my responses above.

 

[StTruth]

No, there are two different Hebrew words "raqia" and "shamayim". Also Psalm 148 helps us to understand the distinction also. It talks about Genesis 1 and refers to the highest heavens above the waters above the sky, ie the clouds, which is outer space.

Hi,

I dispute that. Show me the particular verse in Genesis 1 that uses two different words for 'sky' or 'firmament'. You cannot use other books of the Bible and try to read into Genesis 1 what it doesn't contain. Whatever your reply may be, let me just assure readers that I KNOW you will not be able to do as I have requested simply because there is NO SUCH THING in Genesis 1 which speaks of a very flawed cosmology but which is perfectly understandable because Genesis was written by ancient people who were ignorant of cosmology and who simply applied ancient Hebrew cosmology which is incorrect.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
People that have promoted them as the literal truth have produced almost everything good about Western Civilization, including providing the rational basis for the right to free speech that you are presently exercising on this website.

They were writing History and see above about what others have done with their writings. Of course, since we are all sinners some so-called Christians have taken the words out of context and done evil things in the name of Christ, I am not denying that. But overall the good that has been done by Christians and Christianity has FAR outweighed the bad.

rad: EdWolf, you had better provide some evidence or at least facts supporting those claims. Otherwise you stand as a liar.

Well the great Christian philosopher John Locke demonstrated how all human rights are based on God and His Law. And the founding fathers of America (of whom most were Christians or at least believed in the Christian worldview) used Locke's reasoning and the teachings of Christ and His disciples to develop the Bill of Rights which of course include the right to free speech. As far as all the good Christians and Christianity has produced, Christians invented modern science, modern hospitals, modern orphanages, modern universities, and etc. Google the founders of each of the modern branches of science, almost all Christians, google the founding of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, etc. All founded by Christians. Look at the founding of most of the great hospitals of the world, almost all founded by Christian Churches. The USA as we know it would not exist if orthodox Protestant Christianity had not existed and most of the founders being members of that group. Also, the very nature of modern science was influenced by Christianity and the Bible. The Bible teaches that there is an objective realtiy and that it operates according to regular laws. Read Jeremiah 33:25.

 

[radhead]

EdWolf,
You are confusing the "teachings of Christ" with a belief in the supernatural gods you believe in. You know that is wrong. And you know that you are deliberately misrepresenting it.