My Evidence Challenge

[Tiberius]

Is anyone listening to you say it?

Say what? Listening to me say that the fact that the Harry Potter mentions things that exist in reality, then it all must be true? Of course no one is listening to me say that, because I'm not stupid enough to think that if a source is correct about a testable claim, then its untestable claims must be true.

You can say a lot of things without putting any effort, time or energy into it. We spend a lifetime to read, research and study this. We build on the work of the people before us that spent their whole lifetime to study and seek the truth.

Who should we listen to, someone that put 40 years of their life into the study of a subject. Or someone that put about 5 min of study into the very same subject.

Of course, when you have a consensus that evolution is true among the people who study it and use it every day, you are perfectly willing to ignore them and come up with reasons to say they're wrong. So it seems you follow your advice only when it suits you.

 

[Tiberius]

That is why they believe He was born in 4 BC. I go by the NASA date of April 13, 2029 as the 2000 years anniversery of when Jesus was crucified. Then 7 years later. Again in 2036. Because so many people talk about a 7 year tribulation period. Apophis Asteroid

What year do you think that Jesus was born?

NASA dated this? Got a source?

 

[razeontherock]

And the only way to know of this "event" is via the pages of the Bible.

For most of us, that is true. And yet I have given you cases where very different people in very different places have known these same facts, w/ no Bible. This would appear to address your stated concern, and do so very directly.

And all you can do is complain?

There is no historical account of Jesus that has been found apart from the "synoptic gospels" none of which were written even within a decade of his literal actual existance.

There are two very silly implications you are making here, both of which you really are smart enough to know better.

1) Biblical accounts were recorded in writing far closer to the event than just about any other work of antiquity, and per scholarly standards (all of them) the Bible is FAR more reliable than anything else we have up to that date, and well beyond.

2) Anyone recording the events of the Gospels was Christian, by definition. Think about this!

The Gospels were recited aloud by memory every day for some 30 years before they were written, and writing them was not any benefit to those who had been doing the reciting. Why would anyone else want to write down their own separate account? And yet that is what we do see, and a whole plethora of them. So much so that people later got together to put their goodhousekeeping seal of approval on a few.

Yes. The most important fact in all of creation should be abundantly and patently obvious to all even without reference to the Bible

There are those that say the Gospel is preached via certain plants and elements of nature, which includes the stars. For a researcher one might think you would already be familiar with the concept of "seek and you will find."

I guess if it was important enough for you to make it would be important enough to have handy

Guess again. Why do you expect me to do your homework for you? Which one of us is asking the questions? (Hint: I am the one who has gotten my answers, on the points under discussion here)

This is somewhat confusing: he learned of Christ from a missionary but when he got to the Missionary he already knew of Christ?

This is not confusing at all. I plainly stated he learned of Christ directly from God, which was the only reason I wrote a word about this. (Someone learning of Christ from a missionary wouldn't have any place in this exchange, as far as I can see)

Are you telling me there is another way to salvation in the Christian church??????????

Because it seems that knowing this set, especially the latter points, is just about the core of the faith. The most important knowledge that can be known in Christianity.

None of this is a natural product from anything i have said. You must be hung up on some petty point of semantics somewhere.

A God who will (according to some sects of your faith) punish people who fail to adhere to the points of the "soteriological plan" in an eternal lake of fire with pain and anguish beyond comprehension but who rarely speaks to people would indeed not be deserving of the title "all loving" and "merciful".

He would be cruel beyond rational thought. Even as an atheist I do not accept that as a concept of god of any sort!

If you could jump in your De'Lorean and go to the early Church, you would find them looking at you like some kind of monster for presenting the foreign idea that "soteriological views" were relevant.

The Gospel is that Christ is Savior. There's no room in that for what you're on about here ...

So far you have made vague references to apocryphal tales with no supporting evidence of people who somehow heard about Christ through some miracle.

Sorry, but that doesn't quite cut it.

(Isaiah 53:1) Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?"

Are you able to put 2 + 2 together, and come up with 4? While you complain about "homework," this is up to you. Eyewitness testimony is evidence; amazing how many atheists on CF are willing to refute that

No but I can go to the city and see where the roads lead. If I cannot get to the city ahead of time I must rely on the map.

There is a "real world analogue" of the roads in the actual city.

The map is good, the roads are good.

But in terms of Christian Salvation and the rest of the details of the Judeo Christian God they are limited to just the map. I don't even know that the city exists, let alone am able to get to it.

Quite an apt analogy! EVERY person who has ever been born again, has been in exactly your state. Let's look at the first one:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God." (Hebrews 11)

I can wholly agree with that. Obviously we differ as to the relative "scale" of human ignorance in this matter.

Pure assumption. And thinking you know, prevents communication.

I must respectfully deny you that request. I need not moderate anything in my request of knowledge of God. If he is indeed the most important concept in the Universe then I am allowed to require the universe from him.

It is up to him to provide me whatever he wishes obviously. But I am allowed to ask whatever I want

Your heart attitude on display here is foolish, considering Jesus Himself addressed this at length. I won't speak for God on the specifics of your case, but it is reasonable to conclude you can expect only deafening silence in response from Him, until you ... "moderate" yourself on this matter, and line up to the Word.

and it is not unreasonable to demand more than apocryphal tales of pygmies in unnamed jungles without supporting evidence.

Oh, waaa. I have given you names of living people right on CF you can speak with, and also directed you to a sub-forum where you would be likely to encounter more people that could furnish you with info such as you request.

It is not unreasonable to demand that the "facts" of God and his plan for humanity be as incontrovertible as gravity itself.

I like gravity as an analogy as I said before. We don't fully understand how it really "works" yet, but we know all about what it does to a very, very high degree of detail.

And the reason we have such detail is because it behaves consistently, as does God. Insist on a way such as you outline here, and one gets nothing. Go God's way, and He has responded consistently for 1,000's of years. You do the math!

So how does it work when you fellowship with Muslims who ostensibly worship the exact same supreme being as you do but who have a rather different idea of the "truth" of which of you are going to heaven and which are going to be tormented eternally?

How does it work indeed. The first thing (which should be obvious) is to get past the finger pointing.

BUT in the case of Christianity there are rather more specific requirements. That if failed will result in failure to achieve salvation.

Gotta stop ya there, already. You say the requirements are "insanely simple," but you have clearly missed the most important point, that Salvation is not "achieved." You might be able to tell just by the word, Salvation. You're confusing it with something one earns; i.e., law.

The only thing any of us will earn from God is death, and it is payment for our own sin.

One must believe that JESUS CHRIST, 100% God and 100% man came to earth and was sacrificed to atone for man's sin and he rose from the dead. The only requirement is that you accept that JESUS CHRIST is your personal lord and savior.

I must take exception to your statement and ask, what does any of this mean? Starting with the word "sacrifice." You may skip atone and rose from the dead, I think you're ok with that. Then this Lord and Savior stuff - whuzzat? Seems it's pretty meaningless to you. (Honesty definitely gets you points w/ God)

While this is really easy, it is not patently obvious. An "obvious" soteriology is to treat people kindly and do unto others as one would have them do unto you, and do good works.

This is not soteriology at all, but basics of a way of life. And of course, massive violations of that by professing Christians, mostly during the dark ages, muddies the water, so to speak.

I think if Christian salvation was a simple matter of the (sorry to do this) "Bill and Ted Philosophy" of "Be excellent to each other" it would be patently obvious.

Thank you, I have a circle I can use that within (And it's needed)

You are correct, Christian Salvation is not based on this. I do hope that if I say it is connected to Jesus being one's Lord and Savior, that it is not a hint for you as to deeper meaning of what that means?

 

[razeontherock]

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I believe the events described in Genesis are not to be interpreted literally, after all its Jewish authors never interpreted it literally, what is a day to God? Is it the sun rising and setting, is it 1 earth year or 1 billion earth years? Also the Bible is not a scientific textbook.

+1

And this poster will verify that she and I disagree on plenty, and neither of us are shy about speaking up when we do. So it's significant that we agree on this!

To me it makes reasonable, intellectual and logical sense that God uses Science to explain the world and universes around us.

I disagree, but only in semantics. God does not use science, that is a human pursuit. Science explains God's handiwork; is that an improved statement?

Science can never explain the 'whys' of our existence though. It can only provide some answers to the 'hows'. It is not important in the bigger scheme because it is not a salvific issue.

I disagree that human understanding is not important, but you express the proper priorities; Salvation is more important.

 

[LOCO]

+1

And this poster will verify that she and I disagree on plenty, and neither of us are shy about speaking up when we do. So it's significant that we agree on this!



I disagree, but only in semantics. God does not use science, that is a human pursuit. Science explains God's handiwork; is that an improved statement?



I disagree that human understanding is not important, but you express the proper priorities; Salvation is more important.

Hello my friend raze, how are you?

 

[razeontherock]

Good to see you here Sis

 

[AV1611VET]

That is why they believe He was born in 4 BC. I go by the NASA date of April 13, 2029 as the 2000 years anniversery of when Jesus was crucified. Then 7 years later. Again in 2036. Because so many people talk about a 7 year tribulation period. Apophis Asteroid

I see by your profile that you are, like I am, PRETRIB.

So are you saying that the Rapture is going to occur in 2029?

What year do you think that Jesus was born?

Employing my Boolean standards here -- 4 BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

NASA dated this? Got a source?

I believe NASA dated the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe NASA dated the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem.

That would be difficult if the Star of Bethlehem is just a myth. But there has been speculation, of course:

A Christmas Star for SOHO - NASA Science

That's 2BC, though.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be difficult if the Star of Bethlehem is just a myth.

You would be difficult to date, if you were just a myth too -- wouldn't you?

 

[Doveaman]

What did I say I needed to prove wrong or right? I merely point out that I cannot find a way in which one "hypothesis" which says the earth was created about 10,000 years ago or less and an alternate hypothesis which says the earth can be much much older can be equivalent.

Who says they are?

OEC or YEC is not in the Bible. They are both theories that seek to explain the facts of Scripture. Whether they are right or wrong does not change those facts. And weather they are right or wrong does not have any bearing on our salvation.

OEC theory and YEC theory take biblical facts into account, unlike evolution theory which completely ignores those facts.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Who says they are?

You need to read back throught the thread. One poster indicated that they can be simultaneously true.

Here's the relevant quote:

Gen 1 is literal truth metaphor and more. That is what makes God so great. There are levels of meaning and understanding. That is why OEC, GAP & YEC can all be true at the same time.

OEC or YEC is not in the Bible. They are both theories that seek to explain the facts of Scripture.

That is anti-science. The scriptures cannot merely be declared to be facts thereby requiring that the rest of science be bent, twisted and destroyed to make the evidence fit the "facts".

That is why I would be much more impressed with the Bible as a "science book" if it were able to stand up to just plain old evidence-based observations with regards to the Genesis accounts.

Whether they are right or wrong does not change those facts. And weather they are right or wrong does not have any bearing on our salvation.

I've heard differently. But then I'm not a Christian so I don't have to fight with other Christians over whether rejecting literal Genesis is part of rejecting Christ (a claim I've heard from some Christian sects).

That is an internal problem you Christians must settle among yourselves.

OEC theory and YEC theory take biblical facts into account, unlike evolution theory which completely ignores those facts.

I guess that means you have to start from the "claim" that Genesis is ipso facto "fact". Without any actual reason to believe that to be the case. Otherwise YEC most assuredly does not make use of facts. It makes sole use of words from a book of relatively unknown origin and does not correspond to any actual observational facts about reality from the earth's history.

I find YEC to be about the most sad hypothesis I can imagine. I'm a geologist by training so wherever I go I love to look at the rocks. The rich history the rocks tells us about is an absolutely amazing experience if you actually look with some knowledge at them. Even just looking at building stone can sometimes be a transformative experience.

But YEC works to strip all the grandeur from nature. It turns it into a sick joke. A sad pale reflection of a much greater and much more interesting reality.

It's like looking at some kid's Lego block copy of house and thinking it is as beautiful as a gothic cathedral.

I find YEC to be sad. I really feel sorry for people who believe in YEC because, even if they believe in God they believe in such a limited handicapped God that He would seem hardly worth worship.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For most of us, that is true. And yet I have given you cases where very different people in very different places have known these same facts, w/ no Bible. This would appear to address your stated concern, and do so very directly.

And all you can do is complain?

Actually Raze you gave me nothing but a vague description of where I could possibly find some stories.

If that is all you need to convince yourself of a point, that's fine.

As I said, I will, when time permits get around to doing your work for you to look for support for your claim.

I'm used to doing work for others. I'm a professional researcher and I've spent a lot of time doing this sort of thing.

But remember; I'm doing your work for you. Nothing less.

2) Anyone recording the events of the Gospels was Christian, by definition. Think about this!

Maybe not the same type of Christian as you, though. Remember, the church orthodoxy was still being molded. That is why Paul had his discussions with the "Jerusalem" church.

There are those that say the Gospel is preached via certain plants and elements of nature, which includes the stars. For a researcher one might think you would already be familiar with the concept of "seek and you will find."

You know what I'm also familiar with?

1. Confirmation bias

2. Finding trends in data simply due to random chance (this is something that is a fundamental aspect one must appreciate in statistical analysis of data)

If I seek to find something I suspect is already there I'm probably going to find evidence that confirms my bias. If I'm lucky I'll also find a trend that statistically just randomly occurs 5% of the time, et viola!

I'm a believer!

Guess again. Why do you expect me to do your homework for you? Which one of us is asking the questions? (Hint: I am the one who has gotten my answers, on the points under discussion here)

You were the one who claimed non-Biblical knowledge of the specific Chistian Soteriology actually occured. You didn't bother to provide any real evidence other than something that sounds like an "urban legend". No supporting documentation, no links, no additional information (as in even what year or decade or even century! You provided almsot nothing in support of your claim).

Again, your problem is you are dealing with someone (me) who makes a living doing research. I am not as fond of hand-waivy misty apocryphal stories and as such you will seldom find me comfortable in doing that in support of my own points. If I make a big claim, I will almost always support it with at least a citation.

For the credulous like yourself it may not take as much. You want the truth to be thus and so, so any story no matter how apocryphal or vague will do fine. You didn't come to Jesus because of the Pygmy story so it doesn't really matter to you. But since you brought it up in answer to my query I would hope you would understand that in my line of work I've seen myself and others lead down wrong paths simply because we didn't question something hard enough.

This is the problem when you deal with professional researchers. We know where we can trip up and so we require a bit more support for points.

This is not necessarily your life, so you don't have to be skilled in this area. Just an FYI of what your "data" looks like from the side of someone who works with data every day.

This is not confusing at all. I plainly stated he learned of Christ directly from God,

IMPORTANT PART:

Now, again, we are back at the most important question for me:

Without any reference to anyone (Christian) you learned through "first principles" about

1. The existance of Jesus Christ (the literal person in 1st century Judea)
2. The nature of this being (100% God and simultaneously 100% man)
3. That the only way to salvation was to accept that this person (Jesus Christ in Judea circa first century AD) died for your sins and is your personal savior

You had that pop into your head through God directly? No Christian or not Bible-related information came around to show you those facts?

(Honestly, I'm asking this in all seriousness. I'm really, really curious if this actually, literally happened to you. In a vacuum you came to understand all of those points.)

None of this is a natural product from anything i have said. You must be hung up on some petty point of semantics somewhere.

No, it is not semantic at all! The core of Christian salvation lay in the acceptance of Jesus Christ as lord and savior. That is a very specific person from a very specific time who underwent a very specific process and whose message from God was that only through acceptance of this very specific person from this very specific time and that person's sacrifice you are provided salvation via the Grace of God.

That is not semantic in the least. I am curious where that is obvious outside of the pages of the Bible.

The Gospel is that Christ is Savior. There's no room in that for what you're on about here ...

Now the details are somewhat more nuanced. As you are no doubt aware there was a Protestant-Catholic split that ripped apart much of Europe during the 16th century over the different details of salvation. Even within Protestantism there are subtle differences.

This is not just "semantics" we are talking about here. Some people feel that this will be quite important.

Obviously grace alone factors in all of them and within all of them the acceptance of Jesus as lord and savior is the keystone, but the necessary steps along with that or the details around that are obviously of so much importance that many people died in the 16th and 17th centuries because of this.

Even before then the "details" of faith caused many deaths (I'm thinking of the Albigensian Crusade in France) as well as numerous heresies which were sometimes brutally repressed.

Are you able to put 2 + 2 together, and come up with 4? While you complain about "homework," this is up to you. Eyewitness testimony is evidence; amazing how many atheists on CF are willing to refute that

Eyewitness evidence? You call a vague story that didn't even tell me which century let alone any sort of geographical detail "eyewitness testimony"?

Please tell me you are not registered to vote as I would hope you don't wind up on any juries. (No offense).

Pure assumption. And thinking you know, prevents communication.

I don't think I "know" anything! I would be glad if God would show us something!

That's kind of the point of being an atheist.

Your heart attitude on display here is foolish, considering Jesus Himself addressed this at length. I won't speak for God on the specifics of your case, but it is reasonable to conclude you can expect only deafening silence in response from Him, until you ... "moderate" yourself on this matter, and line up to the Word.

And you seem to make the FOOLISH assumption that I never tried. Believe me, I tried. You wouldn't know how much I begged and tried and came to the brink of self-annihilation over this.

But of course since I arrived at a different point from you, then I (as per usual) must have done somethign wrong.

Sorry, God was silent when he needed to speak loudest to me, when my ears were open and my eyes were searching the heavens.

You don't know my life and you don't know my personal pain and torment. Why could I wind up different from you?

Oh, yeah, I must have done something "wrong", but we all know God doesn't pay much attention to the details as we've been discussing here earlier...

Oh, waaa. I have given you names of living people right on CF you can speak with, and also directed you to a sub-forum where you would be likely to encounter more people that could furnish you with info such as you request.

As I said you could have simply used a "hyperlink" but you chose to vaguely describe the location. I'll look it up as I have time.

Again, I'm not faulting you. I'm so used to doing other people's work for them in supporting their claims that it's no biggie.

But just in case you are interested: in HTML scripting language you can include commands like <a href= ......something-something-something...> followed by a </a> (I hope that shows up on here correctly). Or you can use the little "globe icon" up there to paste a link in directly.

This is called doing your own work. But again, I do it for so many that it's not a big thing.

And the reason we have such detail is because it behaves consistently, as does God. Insist on a way such as you outline here, and one gets nothing. Go God's way, and He has responded consistently for 1,000's of years. You do the math!

Again it amazes me how much of a stickler God is for some unknown detail. In 1984 when I was contemplating suicide day after day after day after day and I needed something from God but got nothing, perhaps you can tell me what I did wrong. I could have used a bit of "love" there.

(Oh, to be fair to God the two reasons I didn't go through with it were:

1. I was afraid I'd hurt my roommate in the attempt
2. I was still a Christian at the time and thought suicide meant a straight ticket to hell

If that is how God helped me then I can assure you there was nothing that even remotely felt like God's "love" or "compassion" or caring. It was pure fear and dread. Which, I might point out, for someone suffering clinical depression, really isn't all that helpful.

If that is how God answers prayers then I'm quite happy to give up talking to him. Just an FYI.

Oh, and lest you think that is the cause of my atheism: it isn't. I kept on as a believer and justified the lack of communication for another 20 years. My atheism grew out of an assessment of the impact of faith on my entire life and how it worked with my particular brain chemistry. A crucial review of all I believed coupled with a lot of study and analysis wound me up here.

So don't read too much into my "dark night of the soul". It was but one tiny step on the road)

Gotta stop ya there, already. You say the requirements are "insanely simple," but you have clearly missed the most important point, that Salvation is not "achieved."

God almighty! It's like you are looking for anything to question my points! Did I not mention "Grace" in the following paragraph? Do you honestly think I'm not aware of the Grace part? The only thing we need to do to receive that grace is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

And by "achieved" I meant "happens". You spent so much time trying to find error in others it amazes me! You must have been a Pharisee in a previous life.

I am impressed at how ignorant you think I am and you arrive at this conclusion by reading each single word and finding which ever special 'code' word you were looking for at that time missing, so you can try to nail my 'error' on that!

I must take exception to your statement and ask, what does any of this mean? Starting with the word "sacrifice." You may skip atone and rose from the dead, I think you're ok with that. Then this Lord and Savior stuff - whuzzat? Seems it's pretty meaningless to you. (Honesty definitely gets you points w/ God)

Let me wax philosophical and sound quite like the person of faith you seem to think I can not understand:

I am a true believer that I am not a fundamentally good person. If there's a God then I' surely do not deserve his mercy or kindness. I fall far short of the goal. If there was a Jesus and God sent him down here to atone (and by atone I mean make "at one" me with God) and the only way that happened was for God to allow his beloved creature to be sacrificed on my behalf that would be fantastic! THAT'S a loving act! (Albeit the actual logic behind it is strange and twisted since Jesus IS God and God is the one making the rules that sacrifice is needed so he essentially sacrifices himself to himself because he commands that that is what is requried...but let's set that aside for a moment)

I live my life knowing that I am not deserving of kindness, but it is by "grace" that I am shown kindness. I can do nothing but try my best knowing it will never be perfect. It doesn't have to be so long as I recognize that I am undeserving of it an that I merely accept that that grace is freely given to me despite my shortcomings.

THAT is a loving God.

You spend so much time on here acting as if I'm some sort of "cradle atheist" whose never spent more than 14 second thinking about this "Jesus stuff". YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. DEAD WRONG.

This has been much of my life.

Yet you make it seem so "simple" by spending all your time trying to find errors in my points. I fail to mention one specific word and "Aha! gotcha!" You may not want your words to come across like that, but that is much of what I see in you.

You seem so desperate to find errors in others who wound up on a different path from you that I wonder if you have a grasp of what it means to work on the beam in your own eye.

 

[Jazer]

That is anti-science. The scriptures cannot merely be declared to be facts thereby requiring that the rest of science be bent, twisted and destroyed to make the evidence fit the "facts".

So you admit that you are anti science. Your willing to bend and twist science to hide and cover up the truth. I am surprised that your willing to tell on yourself like that.

Not everyone here is anti science. But it is easy to tell the Atheists that are anti science & try to twist and warp the truth. Creationists usually love science because they love God. Science helps us to learn more about God and the world that He created for us to live in.

It is easy to see why most people support Christianity and
very few people support the atheist perspective. (atheist propaganda)

 

[cupid dave]

Truth is knowable,

For example, we are told Jesus will come again to Judge the living and the dead.

Do we really know what that will be like, or can we appreciate the full impact of the statement?

If we take Jesus at his Word, that He is Truth, (the ideal or concept of Truth in the largest sense), then it will come again always.

Like the Phoenix, Truth rises again and again from its own ashes.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If we take Jesus at his Word, that He is Truth, (the ideal or concept of Truth in the largest sense), then it will come again always.

Like the Phoenix, Truth rises again and again from its own ashes.

Actually, we have no record of Jesus ever writing anything. The only words we have are copies of what was supposedly said, recorded by people who weren't there, 40-70 years after his supposed death (there is no corroborating Roman or Jewish record of the crucifixion).

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, we have no record of Jesus ever writing anything.

Someone's never heard of the Lamb's Book of Life, has he?

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Someone's never heard of the Lamb's Book of Life, has he?

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Oh, I've heard of it. Have you heard of the Death Star, Narnia, Mordor and Hogwarts?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I've heard of it. Have you heard of the Death Star, Narnia, Mordor and Hogwarts?

No -- and I don't pretend like I do.

ETA: Okay, the Death Star, I think, was from Star Wars.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No -- and I don't pretend like I do.

ETA: Okay, the Death Star, I think, was from Star Wars.

But you are good at pretending, no?