Is creationism and Christianity dying in the US?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I didn't watch the video, however Im familiar with that verse in 1 Corinthians.

Do you have a point to make?

Recipe:
1 quote by Albert Einstein
1 quote by the apostle Paul
1 video chat between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Wienberg

Add time, thought and reflection upon what you said before.
Stir, reflect and meditate.
Viola: MULL OF KINTYRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5626WzsfMw

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What is holding me back from believing something for which there is no evidence? are you serious?

Oh, I thought you were a reasonable person. I was wrong. Moving on.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Now I know that you are an unreasonable person because it's required to believe as you do, foolish is as foolish does.

I think you've got that the wrong way round Fancy123:

You say:

'To believe something that has no evidence backing it up can only mean blind faith, you would not do that in any other part of your life, ever, without evidence backing it up you would not believe anything because you need evidence for something before you would ever accept it as being true, unless of course you were a fool then all bets are off.'

You say:

'What is holding me back from believing something for which there is no evidence? are you serious?'

Let's start with the most basic of questions:

What historian do you know who rejects the existence of Jesus?

Google here

 

[AV1611VET]

It was about as real as relationships with imaginary friends can get.

In other words, sterile and meaningless; as opposed to:

• enlightened
• tasting the heavenly gift
• made a partaker of the Holy Ghost
• tasted the good word of God
• tasted the powers of the world to come

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 

[JacksBratt]

I am not denying the existence of someone called Jesus I am asking why anyone would believe he was the son of a God? Where is the evidence for that claim? All you have are stories written by people a long long time after said Jesus had died.
Also there are no other account of this Jesus anywhere, if he was as is claimed the son of a God he didn't make many waves when he was alive did he?

Firstly, He made enough waves to be crusified by the religious leaders He called out even when He was found innocent by the Roman court.
Think about that...Found without falt yet mudered by the religious "masters" of the day for pointing out their errors.

Secondly, If they had of proved that He did not return from the grave, had a body to show this, there would be no story today. Can you imagine the ruckus if the High Priests and Romans had of found a body of this man that called Himself God and condemned their ways,claimed to be God and said He would return from the grave?

Thing is, there was no body, He showed up, resurected to thousands.

That's why He is still makeing waves, even today more than 2000 years later.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I think you've got that the wrong way round Fancy123:

You say:

'To believe something that has no evidence backing it up can only mean blind faith, you would not do that in any other part of your life, ever, without evidence backing it up you would not believe anything because you need evidence for something before you would ever accept it as being true, unless of course you were a fool then all bets are off.'

You say:

'What is holding me back from believing something for which there is no evidence? are you serious?'

Let's start with the most basic of questions:

What historian do you know who rejects the existence of Jesus?

Google here

If you read your own link, you will see that there is no evidence that any miracle claims in the bible are true.

Con men have been praying on the weak minded and gullible for millennia, as a matter of fact, here is a link to prove Jesus Christ is alive and well, and living in Australia: Man claims to Be Jesus Christ The Messiah living in Australia - YouTube.

Do you believe this conman is the son of god? Don't you think it is ridiculous to believe in these claims, whether from someone who is alive today, or someone who was alive two thousand years ago?

 

[bhsmte]

I think you've got that the wrong way round Fancy123:

You say:

'To believe something that has no evidence backing it up can only mean blind faith, you would not do that in any other part of your life, ever, without evidence backing it up you would not believe anything because you need evidence for something before you would ever accept it as being true, unless of course you were a fool then all bets are off.'

You say:

'What is holding me back from believing something for which there is no evidence? are you serious?'

Let's start with the most basic of questions:

What historian do you know who rejects the existence of Jesus?

Google here

Very few well credentialed historians claim that Jesus was not a real historical figure. I would lean heavily towards Jesus being a real historical figure as well, but will add this; the arguments historians like Carrier make against Jesus' existence, are more compelling than the arguments some conservative Christian NT historians will give on the historical credibility of the NT in general.

There has always been one innate issue in regards to historical work in regards to the NT specifically and that is; the vast majority of these historians are devout Christians, with some being conservative Christians, who happen to be employed by theological institutions and this has not exactly made their work the most objective. Historians who have pointed out the historical credibility issues in the NT, have typically dealt with extreme criticism from the conservative side and this still exists today.

Bottom line, if one examines a variety of historians take on the NT, the consensus would agree on the following as being historically credible:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the ice gets quite thin, when it comes to historical credibility.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Secondly, If they had of proved that He did not return from the grave, had a body to show this, there would be no story today. Can you imagine the ruckus if the High Priests and Romans had of found a body of this man that called Himself God and condemned their ways,claimed to be God and said He would return from the grave?

Thing is, there was no body, He showed up, resurected to thousands.

Er...there is the same amount of evidence that this is true as there is that Santa flies around in a reindeer powered sleigh delivering presents on Christmas Eve.

That's why He is still makeing waves, even today more than 2000 years later.

No. "He" is still making waves because conmen who didn't want to get an honest job realized they could con the weak minded and gullible into giving them one tenth of their income. In other words, for the same reason other religions, such as Hinduism, are still making waves today.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Very few well credentialed historians claim that Jesus was not a real historical figure. I would lean heavily towards Jesus being a real historical figure as well, but will add this; the arguments historians like Carrier make against Jesus' existence, are more compelling than the arguments some conservative Christian NT historians will give on the historical credibility of the NT in general.

There has always been one innate issue in regards to historical work in regards to the NT specifically and that is; the vast majority of these historians are devout Christians, with some being conservative Christians, who happen to be employed by theological institutions and this has not exactly made their work the most objective. Historians who have pointed out the historical credibility issues in the NT, have typically dealt with extreme criticism from the conservative side and this still exists today.

Bottom line, if one examines a variety of historians take on the NT, the consensus would agree on the following as being historically credible:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the ice gets quite thin, when it comes to historical credibility.

That's all I was trying to establish by my question to Fancy123. I'm glad that everyone on this thread, seems to agree about the basic historical claims.
As to the miraculous (bread to wine, walking on water, raising the dead etc.) and most certainly the matter of the resurrection, and one might as well include the matter of the deity of Jesus -- I'm not even going to bother to go there, though I am well aware that Carrier and Price (were strong debaters against these) -- yet, there are equally strong challenges by writers such as Ben Witherington and Gary Habermas.

How do you stand on the matter of the writings of St. Paul -- I know for a fact, that Dr. Ehrman spoke out strongly in favor of them -- as well as the writings of the secular historians i.e. Josephus.

 

[bhsmte]

That's all I was trying to establish by my question to Fancy123. I'm glad that everyone on this thread, seems to agree about the basic historical claims.
As to the miraculous (bread to wine, walking on water, raising the dead etc.) and most certainly the matter of the resurrection, and one might as well include the matter of the deity of Jesus -- I'm not even going to bother to go there, though I am well aware that Carrier and Price (were strong debaters against these) -- yet, there are equally strong challenges by writers such as Ben Witherington and Gary Habermas.

How do you stand on the matter of the writings of St. Paul -- I know for a fact, that Dr. Ehrman spoke out strongly in favor of them -- as well as the writings of the secular historians i.e. Josephus.

Ehrman simply felt the balance of the evidence pointed towards Jesus being a real historical figure and in doing so, he does acknowledge the position of those who claim Jesus was manufactured and how they get their argument, he just disagrees with it after weighing all the evidence.

I have read a lot of NT historians work and have a lot of respect for Ehrman's position and the objectivity he brings into play, even though he has been bashed repeatedly by the conservative side.

When I look at the various takes of historians, I try to be objective and look first at their credentials, any motivation they would have to fall on a certain side and the pure logic of their position.

Ehrman, has impeccable credentials; Moody Bible Institutes, Wheaton College and Phd from Princeton, where he studied under the leading NT scholar of the 20th century. He also was a conservative Christian and Baptist minister for a while, so it took guts for him to acknowledge he had become agnostic.

I have watched numerous debates between Ehrman and other scholars/historians and although he has an edge to him, his arguments always seem to be backed by much more objectivity, than those he debates against.

 

[madaz]

Recipe:
1 quote by Albert Einstein
1 quote by the apostle Paul
1 video chat between Richard Dawkins and Stephen Wienberg

Add time, thought and reflection upon what you said before.
Stir, reflect and meditate.
Viola: MULL OF KINTYRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5626WzsfMw

I'm sorry but I'm not too good with guessing games, you will need to be more specific for me to understand your point.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Ehrman simply felt the balance of the evidence pointed towards Jesus being a real historical figure and in doing so, he does acknowledge the position of those who claim Jesus was manufactured and how they get their argument, he just disagrees with it after weighing all the evidence.

I have read a lot of NT historians work and have a lot of respect for Ehrman's position and the objectivity he brings into play, even though he has been bashed repeatedly by the conservative side.

When I look at the various takes of historians, I try to be objective and look first at their credentials, any motivation they would have to fall on a certain side and the pure logic of their position.

Ehrman, has impeccable credentials; Moody Bible Institutes, Wheaton College and Phd from Princeton, where he studied under the leading NT scholar of the 20th century. He also was a conservative Christian and Baptist minister for a while, so it took guts for him to acknowledge he had become agnostic.

I have watched numerous debates between Ehrman and other scholars/historians and although he has an edge to him, his arguments always seem to be backed by much more objectivity, than those he debates against.

I should have been more specific, so here's my question again.

How do you stand on the matter of the writings of St. Paul (dating etc.) -- I know for a fact, that Dr. Ehrman, in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" spoke out strongly in favor of them -- as well as the writings of the secular historians i.e. Josephus. (with reference to some of the characters mentioned in the NT Gospel accounts i.e. James the brother of Jesus, Jesus etc.)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm sorry but I'm not too good with guessing games, you will need to be more specific for me to understand your point.

Thought I can understand why AV1611VET responds as strongly to you, as he does in post 217 -- when he replies to your statement:

You stated: It was about as real as relationships with imaginary friends can get.

His response:

In other words, sterile and meaningless; as opposed to:

• enlightened
• tasting the heavenly gift
• made a partaker of the Holy Ghost
• tasted the good word of God
• tasted the powers of the world to come

(He was summarizing a passage in Hebrews 6, which implies that you've put your toe in God's river, but not gone any deeper)

Your reply to his question, in post 207 -- is what I'm responding too:

His question: Christ was simply a figment of your imagination then?
Your response: Correct! He was then as he is now. I just didn't realise it at the time.

How have I responded thus far?

(a) Post 208:

Imagination is fun, but it's like a mirage.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.

Guess who?

Your reply: One of my favorite quotes.

(For our Readers Digest: ALBERT EINSTEIN)

(b) Post 210:

Here's another from the chapter which Richard Dawkins and (physicist) Stephen Wienberg* enjoyed: (it's towards the end of their chat)

'For now we see in a mirror dimly, ....'

Here's a translation of it, which I hope opens it up a little more:

'We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. ....'

Guess who?

---

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7AEhbcJoz4

Your reply: I didn't watch the video, however Im familiar with that verse in 1 Corinthians.

Do you have a point to make? __________________

(For our Readers Digest: The Apostle Paul)

Though I'm certain most of our Readers get the point, let me spell it out for you. Your replies to AV1611VET downplay the role of imagination.

My replies to you have been an attempt to point that out, by providing you with some substance i.e. ALBERT EINSTEIN (who you clearly love - Readers please note the following quote in madaz signature:

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever -- this is a somewhat new kind of religion. - ~Albert Einstein~

The subject of the role of imagination in spirituality, is huge -- so here are a couple of links that might be interesting to Readers who might have downplayed it's role in our lives:

1. IGNATIAN SPIRITUALITY - Pray With Your Imagination
2. IMAGINATION, IMAGE OF GOD AND WISDOM OF GOD : THEOSOPHICAL THEMES IN DOOYEWEERD'S PHILOSOPHY - Dr J Glenn Friesen

Just so you don't come back with another 'Do you have a point to make____' I defer to AV1611VET's response in post 217 -- but I'm hoping you'll watch the video, think about the two quotes and take a nice long read through the two very extensive articles (no. 2 is a huge read, so my guess is you'll probably get back to me in a year or two - which will suit me fine. I'm in no hurry to convert you, or revive what seems like a wasted cause to AV1611VET.)

 

[JacksBratt]

Er...there is the same amount of evidence that this is true as there is that Santa flies around in a reindeer powered sleigh delivering presents on Christmas Eve.



No. "He" is still making waves because conmen who didn't want to get an honest job realized they could con the weak minded and gullible into giving them one tenth of their income. In other words, for the same reason other religions, such as Hinduism, are still making waves today.

Er... How many people over the age of 10 believe in Santa?

Er.... It is simple to prove that there is no Santa.....try proving that there was no Jesus.

Concider these:

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

Er... do you know anyone who would die before admitting Santa is a myth?

Jesus Christ is worshiped today because He rocked the world and made waves that are still powerful and changing lives 2000 years later.
​

​

​

 

[AceHero]

I've always said that the decline in Christianity can at least be partially attributed to the prevalence of creationism.

I think it's a combination of embracing anti-science ideas coupled with bigotry in the name of "family" values.

With removing any kind of christianity from the schools, the lords prayer, praying of any kind.

You're still free to pray in school...

So tell me how taking a creation myth that makes absolutely no sense at all when compared to the physical evidence in the world around me literally has anything to do with salvation. Last I read the requirement was to believe in the reality of Christ, his life, death and resurrection for the forgiveness of my sins.

If evolution was the method that God used to put this world in place, it would nullify the need for Christ. It would make Jesus sacrifice null and void. The whole premis of the God became man concept would be unecessary.

If the earth is billions of years old that somehow negates the need for a savior for humanity? Why is that?

 

[lasthero]

Er.... It is simple to prove that there is no Santa.....try proving that there was no Jesus.

Do it. Prove that Santa Claus does not exist.

 

[bhsmte]

I should have been more specific, so here's my question again.

How do you stand on the matter of the writings of St. Paul (dating etc.) -- I know for a fact, that Dr. Ehrman, in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" spoke out strongly in favor of them -- as well as the writings of the secular historians i.e. Josephus. (with reference to some of the characters mentioned in the NT Gospel accounts i.e. James the brother of Jesus, Jesus etc.)

By what I have read, the writings of St. Paul support Jesus as a historical figure, just as the gospels combined support Jesus as a likely historical figure.

Best estimates are his brief writings about Jesus a couple of decades after Jesus death, in which he mentions Jesus died for sins and was resurrected, but he mentions virtually nothing else about Jesus.

St. Paul's writings, considering the earlier dates, would be much more powerful, if they had discussed more specifics about Jesus' life and or details about the crucifixion etc.., which they do not and these specifics only come out decades later and with differences amongst them, in the four gospels.

 

[Euler]

Er... How many people over the age of 10 believe in Santa?

Irrelevant. He was talking about EVIDENCE, not belief. In terms of supporting evidence, he is correct. In fact, it could be argued that there is MORE evidence for the existence of Santa than for any God. He leaves gifts behind!

Er.... It is simple to prove that there is no Santa.....try proving that there was no Jesus.

Please explain how you would conclusively prove that there is no Santa.

Consider these:

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).​

​

The writings of Josephus are very much in doubt (and the writings of those who attempt to utilize him - eg, Eusebius). For example, it is becoming increasingly accepted that his Antiquities is based upon the gospels themselves. So, quoting Josephus is like quoting the Bible to prove the Bible!

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history.

Nonsense. The truth is exactly the opposite! Outside of the Bible, there is NO credible supporting evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus. Here I depart from my friend bhsmte. I don't hold with the "most Biblical scholars" evidence for two major reasons - it commits an Argument from Popularity/Authority fallacy and it ignores the simple fact that "most Biblical scholars" are themselves Christian, so they come to their study already convinced of the existence of the man they are attempting to research!

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

​

And the obvious reply is that Islam and Hinduism must be "true" given the long history of people willing to die for their beliefs in those religions! All that martyrdom indicates is the extent to which a delusion can produce extreme behaviors in individuals. It says nothing about any "truth" behind those behaviors.

Er... do you know anyone who would die before admitting Santa is a myth?

See above.

Jesus Christ is worshiped today because He rocked the world and made waves that are still powerful and changing lives 2000 years later.

He is worshipped because the most powerful empire that existed in the early centuries of the first millennium adopted that worship and carried it to the known world. It became entrenched in that world. You do realize that Muslims could, and do, make exactly the same claim, for approximately the same time span?​

​

​

 

[SkyWriting]

This is taken from a Christian website.
This for a creationist or Christian should not make very good reading:
Of the 250,000 Protestant churches in America, 200,000 are either stagnant (with no growth) or declining. That is 80% of the churches in America and maybe the one you attend, if you attend at all.
4,000 churches close their doors every single year.
There is less than half of the number of churches today than there were only 100 years ago.
3,500 people leave the church every single day.
Since 1950, there are 1/3rd fewer churches in the U.S.

This may not related but a registered sports website documented that
attendance was down at a local stadium. Coincidence? I think not.

Our city Opera Company is having the same problem.
Network Television? Ditto.
Newspapers? Ditto
Magazines? Ditto.
Museums? Ditto.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

By what I have read, the writings of St. Paul support Jesus as a historical figure, just as the gospels combined support Jesus as a likely historical figure.

Best estimates are his brief writings about Jesus a couple of decades after Jesus death, in which he mentions Jesus died for sins and was resurrected, but he mentions virtually nothing else about Jesus.

St. Paul's writings, considering the earlier dates, would be much more powerful, if they had discussed more specifics about Jesus' life and or details about the crucifixion etc.., which they do not and these specifics only come out decades later and with differences amongst them, in the four gospels.

You've probably read the letters, but reading is nothing at all like studying. I suggest you give them another look, and if you want to get some good age arguments have a look at the work of Dr. Gary Habermas.

Take care.