Question 3

[Gadarene]

WE have more and better evidence to consult in this day and age; the bible that we have today was not available back in the days of early Christianity. We have the benefit of Paul's letters and other OT writings. We have the benefit of skilled bible teachers now, and the ability to assess historical sources accurately against other. We have all sorts of online materials and ways and translating and understanding other languages. None of this would have been of this would have been available to anyone in the way that it is now where someone can sit and surf the internet and not even physically visit a library.

To be honest, we have got it easier than anyone has EVER had it. We have technology to do it, and we can sit in the comfort of our own homes and debate on forums how we have NO evidence for things that happened 2000 years ago

Not a strong argument in my opinion - it is significantly more easy to believe now than it was 2000 years ago.

This actually counts against Christianity being true - if greater levels of evidence were not found till now, then it means in the past there was obviously less of it. That means it would have been a greater stumbling block to people.

Again, how is it fair that one generation gets more evidence than another but are all judged by the one standard? Furthermore, it's clear that not everyone processes the evidence in the same way - why is there enough evidence for the credulous but not for the more logically competent?

 

[Danny777]

This actually counts against Christianity being true - if greater levels of evidence were not found till now, then it means in the past there was obviously less of it. That means it would have been a greater stumbling block to people.

Again, how is it fair that one generation gets more evidence than another but are all judged by the one standard? Furthermore, it's clear that not everyone processes the evidence in the same way - why is there enough evidence for the credulous but not for the more logically competent?

There has been a consistent number of people giving their lives to Christ throughout the last 2000 years - if the evidence was so sparse and unconvincing this would not be the case.

Every since the first generation of Christ there have been written accounts of the life of Christ. The number of accounts has not increased over the centuries. If there is enough evidence for any particular generation to come to faith in Christ then it is hardly unfair on those who decide not too - they were working on same evidence. It would prove to be a mistake - not injustice...

There are many "logically competent" people who have become followers of Christ...I will ignore the insult...

Do you believe there is any truth in the Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ?

 

[tonybeer]

What is a good person in your opinion Tony?

People can only be judged according to what they DID not; not what they DIDN'T know. Neither me, nor you or anyone else is in a position to conclude what one another believe or disbelieve. If a person living in Tibet dies only ever having heard about Tibetan Buddhism, then he or she would be judged far less harshly than someone who lived their life with constant contact with Christianity

The commandments are there as, well commandments for living. But these are not for us to "earn" salvation from trying to keep them. Of course, if everyone did keep them then the world would be a better place. But Jesus set us free from the law (the commandments). He knew our inherited sinful state (as described firstly in Genesis) and as much as we try we can never keep ALL of the commandments.
Salvation is given to us freely in the form of grace. We simply need faith, and we need to acknowledge that we cannot save ourselves.

The biggest problem is to firstly get people to realise what sin actually is. You won't be receptive to the gospel if you have no comprehension of the true nature of sin...

In my book a good person makes the world a better place (or at least not a worse place) for those around them. This is incredibly simplistic but for a one sentence answer I can't think of anything better at this moment.



So in other words in heaven there will be all the horrible Catholic priest kiddy fiddlers, yet a tireless charity worker who happens to be a non believer goes to hell? Can you understand why this seems bizarre and to me totally immoral? I would want nothing to do with it even if it were true, as I would have no respect for the type of God that would set this up.

 

[Gadarene]

There has been a consistent number of people giving their lives to Christ throughout the last 2000 years - if the evidence was so sparse and unconvincing this would not be the case.

It might be convincing in their opinion, but that does not make them right.

There have also been consistent numbers of people over the years believing in things that have turned out to be wrong, so this argument demonstrates nothing.

There's been a consistent number of people turning to Islam/Hinduism/insert religion here over the years - why should I accept this as a criterion for thinking your religion is true when it applies to plenty more than just Christianity?

You don't seem to want to consider at all that your standards of evidence may be wrong.

You've also failed to comprehend my argument entirely. I never said that there wouldn't be conversions - I simply granted Ian's claim that there's more material available now than then. This means there would have been MORE of a stumbling block then.

You seem to not agree with him, you seem to think that there has been a consistent level of evidence available over the year - perhaps because you rely so heavily on this "we're all working with the same evidence" canard.

Every since the first generation of Christ there have been written accounts of the life of Christ. The number of accounts has not increased over the centuries. If there is enough evidence for any particular generation to come to faith in Christ then it is hardly unfair on those who decide not too - they were working on same evidence. It would prove to be a mistake - not injustice...

Well, you may want to take that up with ian then - I was basing my argument on his claim that there is indeed more material available now than then.

There are many "logically competent" people who have become followers of Christ...I will ignore the insult...

Not seeing many here.

Do you believe there is any truth in the Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ?

Beyond bare details like the region, the existence of an itinerant apocalyptic prophet and some broad clash with the authorities? Not really.

 

[Danny777]

The problem with this comment and your prior one is that you are automatically assuming the account is entirely true.

Of course I am...I do believe they are true!

The reason I bought this up was to respond to the accusation that it would unfair on those (working with the same evidence) who did not respond to the claims of Christ to suffer any consequences...

This all hinges on whether you believe the accounts of what Jesus said and did are true.

If someone invites you to a party, you have a choice. Do you accept the validity of the invite? Do you want to go? etc etc If you decide not to respond (for whatever reason) you have no right to then complain that you missed out on the party.

Jesus Christ set the terms and conditions of salvation very clearly. He also make very clear the consequences for not believing. He demonstrated the validity of the claims in many unique ways. This all obviously assumes you accept the texts as accurate. This evidence has been sufficient for many hundreds of millions of followers down the centuries. If you do not accept the accounts for any reason, it is not unfair if you suffer any consequences...no-one is hiding any extra information from you!

 

[Gadarene]

Of course I am...I do believe they are true!

Right - so why bother to make an offer predicated on assuming they are true to someone who is not convinced they are true? You are getting ahead of yourself. Convince them of the truth of it first.

The reason I bought this up was to respond to the accusation that it would unfair on those (working with the same evidence) who did not respond to the claims of Christ to suffer any consequences...

This all hinges on whether you believe the accounts of what Jesus said and did are true.

No, it hinges on a great many more things than that - fairness comes into play - is there enough for all to be convinced of it? If not, then is it fair to light people on fire for not believing in it? Is it fair to do so even if they think it's correct but reject the belief anyway?

If someone invites you to a party, you have a choice. Do you accept the validity of the invite? Do you want to go? etc etc If you decide not to respond (for whatever reason) you have no right to then complain that you missed out on the party.

Tediously weak analogy.

I'm being asked to a party in a place that I'm not even convinced exists by a wholly unique entity that I'm not even convinced exists.

Again, you are making far too many assumptions about validity here and getting ahead of yourself.

Jesus Christ set the terms and conditions of salvation very clearly. He also make very clear the consequences for not believing. He demonstrated the validity of the claims in many unique ways. This all obviously assumes you accept the texts as accurate. This evidence has been sufficient for many hundreds of millions of followers down the centuries.

Which doesn't mean they were right.

If you do not accept the accounts for any reason, it is not unfair if you suffer any consequences...no-one is hiding any extra information from you!

It is unfair if the evidence doesn't stack up, which it does not.

And who is god to light me on fire for not agreeing with him?

Again, if your god is like that, and you are representative of that, then I want absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

[Danny777]

So in other words in heaven there will be all the horrible Catholic priest kiddy fiddlers, yet a tireless charity worker who happens to be a non believer goes to hell? Can you understand why this seems bizarre and to me totally immoral? I would want nothing to do with it even if it were true, as I would have no respect for the type of God that would set this up.

You have a distorted view of what it means to be a follower of Christ. The quickest response is to ask you to watch this clip...

This message will change your life! - YouTube

It may not be enough to convince you, but at least you understand the gospel more clearly...

I'm sure Ian will reply more directly to your points...

 

[Danny777]

It is unfair if the evidence doesn't stack up, which it does not.

Again, if your god is like that, and you are representative of that, then I want absolutely nothing to do with him.

The evidence does not stack up FOR YOU - it does for many others otherwise no-one would take any notice of the claims of Christ...

You response to this is all a bit silly.

The Bible teaches that there is a big problem for us (the issue of sin) and because of this judgment is coming. We have been clearly told HOW to escape this judgment. We have a choice - we accept the predicament we are all in and choose the escape...or we don't. Or in your case, you throw your toys out the pram and decide to reject the escape from judgment because you want "absolutely nothing to do with" a God who judges.

You keep talking about evidence - what evidence do you want?

What more could Jesus Christ have done to authenticate who He was?

 

[Gadarene]

The evidence does not stack up FOR YOU - it does for many others otherwise no-one would take any notice of the claims of Christ...

You response to this is all a bit silly.

Says the guy claiming that it's true because some people think it's true.

Again, the level of belief says nothing about the validity - although given that there is no reason why God cannot provide sufficient evidence to match everyone's varying standards, the fact that not everyone believes is a worrying point in favour of invalidity instead.

The Bible teaches that there is a big problem for us (the issue of sin) and because of this judgment is coming. We have been clearly told HOW to escape this judgment. We have a choice - we accept the predicament we are all in and choose the escape...or we don't. Or in your case, you throw your toys out the pram and decide to reject the escape from judgment because you want "absolutely nothing to do with" a God who judges.

Because I'm asking more questions about it than you are - about things that you have not even managed to validate.

Merely claiming it's true doesn't make it so either. And the fact that you might not have thought of these questions doesn't mean that the people who have are being difficult or unwilling to consider that your claims may be true.

Again, you seem remarkably unwilling to consider that you could ever be wrong.

(Oh, and you may call it throwing my toys out of the pram - I call it "integrity". It's nice to know what you really think of such a principle, and another reason why I want nothing to do with your beliefs.)

You keep talking about evidence - what evidence do you want?

What more could Jesus Christ have done to authenticate who He was?

As Robban said, it's rather different hearing about someone second hand than seeing them in the flesh. Was there any need for Jesus to ascend, for example? Why not stick around and keep conducting miracles? We would not have been privy to the resurrection, but an ageless, long-lived humanoid with unique abilities would stand out a lot more than one fabulous claim out of a long litany of them. Why cannot miracles themselves be produced reliably, given how convincing they are? They are frequently nowhere to be seen and when they are claimed to occur they lack any kind of credible evidence for such an extraordinary claim. I'm hardly asking for anything more than was allegedly on offer in the time of Christ, but we are expected to get by with second-hand handmedowns.

Or, if this is out of the question, then do not punish me for responding to a lack of evidence that God is entirely in control over. (There is no real need to punish for sin in the first place either as the entire thing is one giant setup)

 

[ianb321red]

So in other words in heaven there will be all the horrible Catholic priest kiddy fiddlers, yet a tireless charity worker who happens to be a non believer goes to hell? Can you understand why this seems bizarre and to me totally immoral? I would want nothing to do with it even if it were true, as I would have no respect for the type of God that would set this up.

Is this tireless charity worker also a deceitful, lying, cheating sex offender?

Jimmy Saville was a tireless charity worker wasn't he? So is Lance Armstrong. Neither are hardly bastions of morality are they?

The problem with your example is that you are applying arbitrary rules to effectively measure "goodness". You've decided that charity work equates to something that is so great; that in fact it's good enough to even decide your eternal destiny (should you indeed believe in an eternal destiny).

Do you see the fundamental flaw in your point? You choose charity work as an example of "doing good" and then I immediately give you 2 examples of people who were very famous for charity work but also have a very dark side to their character albeit magnified by the public eye.

Indeed, I would imagine that despite Jimmy Saville's charity work, I guess a lot of his victims would indeed be quite happy for him to go straight to hell.

Tony - would it be immoral if Jimmy Saville spent his eternity in hell? Or would his charity work to sufficient recompense?

When people are left to set the human standards of good versus bad, then the course of human history simply shows we are unable to. Pure and simple.

The biggest problem out there is people doing "good deeds" and thinking this makes them a "good" person. People hide behind "doing good"; helping old ladies cross the road and being nice to kittens. This does not deal with sin in Gods eyes - in fact this kind of behaviour makes people proud and takes them further away from God.

Muslims believe in sins plural.
Christians believe in sin singular.

We have all sinned whether we like it to accept it or not. We have all lied, blasphemed and resented other people. Deep down we all know this is not nice behaviour to either do or be on the receiving end of. But yet we somehow kid ourselves that white lies are ok, god doesn't exist to be blasphemed at and thinking badly of others is really not that bad...

Pride is the problem; people thinking they can do good and somehow make the world a better place through united human effort and reason alone.

Yet where is the real evidence that this is possible?
Do good deeds? Yes - but do them for the right reason; to help the recepient/ the end cause, not because it makes you a good or better person.
Give £10 a month to Oxfam? Great - good for you. But are doing this because you are a philanthropist or because you desperately want to see something good happen as a result?

Please excuse my cynicism but if you use Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville as case studies perhaps you'll understand why. The problem here is that you counter this by saying these 2 were exceptions, that doesn't go nearly far enough in dealing with the likelihood of there being other less famous examples out there, or indeed people who far far darker secrets than either of those 2 I've already mentioned.

The real immorality for me is the illusion of "good" that people manufacturer for themselves; especially when presented with a gospel about a God who can deal with all the sin and injustice in this world and offer you and me something better in return.

So it's your choice: Jimmy Saville or Jesus Christ. Which one would you trust?

 

[Gadarene]

Is this tireless charity worker also a deceitful, lying, cheating sex offender?

Obviously not.

Jimmy Saville was a tireless charity worker wasn't he? So is Lance Armstrong. Neither are hardly bastions of morality are they?

Oh dear, we're running with this strawman, aren't we.....

The problem with your example is that you are applying arbitrary rules to effectively measure "goodness". You've decided that charity work equates to something that is so great; that in fact it's good enough to even decide your eternal destiny (should you indeed believe in an eternal destiny).

You're claiming that implying that charity work is better than molesting children is "arbitrary"?

And what precisely is not arbitrary about Yahweh's standard of "do what I say or die"?

No-one is saying that charity work should be necessary enough to save you - but that if you're going to save the guy who's committed far worse acts just because he believes something you want him to over the person who finds it hard to believe but has contributed far more good to society, then you have severely screwed-up priorities.

Do you see the fundamental flaw in your point? You choose charity work as an example of "doing good" and then I immediately give you 2 examples of people who were very famous for charity work but also have a very dark side to their character albeit magnified by the public eye.

Indeed, I would imagine that despite Jimmy Saville's charity work, I guess a lot of his victims would indeed be quite happy for him to go straight to hell.

Tony - would it be immoral if Jimmy Saville spent his eternity in hell? Or would his charity work to sufficient recompense?

It's pretty obvious that that's not what Tony meant - otherwise he wouldn't have presented them as polar opposites for the purposes of his argument.

Although that said, even if this was Tony's argument, his standard would still be better than yours. Doing charity work is better than having an opinion. You believe a god exists? Good for you, have a medal. What good is that going to do for anyone? So charity work + paedophilia still results in more good than believes in god + paedophilia.

When people are left to set the human standards of good versus bad, then the course of human history simply shows we are unable to. Pure and simple.

The biggest problem out there is people doing "good deeds" and thinking this makes them a "good" person. People hide behind "doing good"; helping old ladies cross the road and being nice to kittens. This does not deal with sin in Gods eyes - in fact this kind of behaviour makes people proud and takes them further away from God.

You talk about pride arising from doing such things as if it is an inevitability. Not so, although it's certainly possible.

It's far worse to think that merely holding some belief makes you a good person. Because it alone doesn't actually motivate you to do anything.

We have all sinned whether we like it to accept it or not.

No, there is no reason to accept a concept that is specifically tied to the existence of a particular being.

I accept that I've done wrong, but I do not accept that I have sinned. The former is not necessarily tied to a god-concept, the latter is.

We have all lied, blasphemed and resented other people. Deep down we all know this is not nice behaviour to either do or be on the receiving end of. But yet we somehow kid ourselves that white lies are ok, god doesn't exist to be blasphemed at and thinking badly of others is really not that bad...

I think we can be sure that doing so is not even remotely as bad as paedophilia, nor is it "arbitrary" to say so.

Pride is the problem; people thinking they can do good and somehow make the world a better place through united human effort and reason alone.

You call it pride, in actual fact it's closer to realism. The only ones who can makes things better is us.

Yet where is the real evidence that this is possible?
Do good deeds? Yes - but do them for the right reason; to help the recepient/ the end cause, not because it makes you a good or better person.

Why do you automatically assume that is what people's motivation for doing good things is?

You seem very prejudiced against people who do not think as you do, Ian.

One could just as easily say Christians only do good because they think it will earn them favour with God. People without that motivation are doing it for purer reasons.

Give £10 a month to Oxfam? Great - good for you. But are doing this because you are a philanthropist or because you desperately want to see something good happen as a result?

Do you know what the word "philanthropist" means?

Please excuse my cynicism but if you use Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville as case studies perhaps you'll understand why. The problem here is that you counter this by saying these 2 were exceptions, that doesn't go nearly far enough in dealing with the likelihood of there being other less famous examples out there, or indeed people who far far darker secrets than either of those 2 I've already mentioned.

They're hardly representative of the average person either.

The real immorality for me is the illusion of "good" that people manufacturer for themselves; especially when presented with a gospel about a God who can deal with all the sin and injustice in this world and offer you and me something better in return.

The real immorality for me is that it produces sanctimonious types like yourself who assume that people who don't believe the same as you are only doing good out of self-interest, and who calls a statement implying charity work is a greater good than paedophilia "arbitrary".

So it's your choice: Jimmy Saville or Jesus Christ. Which one would you trust?

That was never the choice - that is your strawman.

Try again Ian - and answer the point honestly this time, or without smearing people who disagree with your beliefs.

 

[tonybeer]

Is this tireless charity worker also a deceitful, lying, cheating sex offender?

Jimmy Saville was a tireless charity worker wasn't he? So is Lance Armstrong. Neither are hardly bastions of morality are they?

The problem with your example is that you are applying arbitrary rules to effectively measure "goodness". You've decided that charity work equates to something that is so great; that in fact it's good enough to even decide your eternal destiny (should you indeed believe in an eternal destiny).

Do you see the fundamental flaw in your point? You choose charity work as an example of "doing good" and then I immediately give you 2 examples of people who were very famous for charity work but also have a very dark side to their character albeit magnified by the public eye.

Indeed, I would imagine that despite Jimmy Saville's charity work, I guess a lot of his victims would indeed be quite happy for him to go straight to hell.

Tony - would it be immoral if Jimmy Saville spent his eternity in hell? Or would his charity work to sufficient recompense?

When people are left to set the human standards of good versus bad, then the course of human history simply shows we are unable to. Pure and simple.

The biggest problem out there is people doing "good deeds" and thinking this makes them a "good" person. People hide behind "doing good"; helping old ladies cross the road and being nice to kittens. This does not deal with sin in Gods eyes - in fact this kind of behaviour makes people proud and takes them further away from God.

Muslims believe in sins plural.
Christians believe in sin singular.

We have all sinned whether we like it to accept it or not. We have all lied, blasphemed and resented other people. Deep down we all know this is not nice behaviour to either do or be on the receiving end of. But yet we somehow kid ourselves that white lies are ok, god doesn't exist to be blasphemed at and thinking badly of others is really not that bad...

Pride is the problem; people thinking they can do good and somehow make the world a better place through united human effort and reason alone.

Yet where is the real evidence that this is possible?
Do good deeds? Yes - but do them for the right reason; to help the recepient/ the end cause, not because it makes you a good or better person.
Give £10 a month to Oxfam? Great - good for you. But are doing this because you are a philanthropist or because you desperately want to see something good happen as a result?

Please excuse my cynicism but if you use Lance Armstrong and Jimmy Saville as case studies perhaps you'll understand why. The problem here is that you counter this by saying these 2 were exceptions, that doesn't go nearly far enough in dealing with the likelihood of there being other less famous examples out there, or indeed people who far far darker secrets than either of those 2 I've already mentioned.

The real immorality for me is the illusion of "good" that people manufacturer for themselves; especially when presented with a gospel about a God who can deal with all the sin and injustice in this world and offer you and me something better in return.

So it's your choice: Jimmy Saville or Jesus Christ. Which one would you trust?

To answer your first question: No. My example is a good person.

The point is they have made life better for other people and in my example not harmed anyone. The Catholic Priests in my example have made life terrible for some people.

I have met lots of genuinely nice atheists who love other people and would never harm anyone.

You would rather go to heaven with the Catholic Priests despite their obvious disregard for other people, just because they've said they believe in Jesus.

I know you haven't said you'd rather go with these people, but you are praising a God who has made up these rules and thereby endorsing these rules. If you think the rules don't make sense then don't praise the God.


You other questions:

Heaven/Hell are ridiculous concepts to me so I'm not sure. I'm not making absolute judgements on any one case, I'm just comparing one person with another. E.g. I think someone who

What you are saying is if Jimmy Savile was a believer he ends up in heaven, no matter what he has done.

If I gave £10 to Oxfam then darn right I'd hope it helped someone out and did good.

You last question: So Jesus and Jimmy Savile come up to me, one says he is the son of God and can fly, and the other says he doesn't like children and winks. Who do I trust? Both I'd think were untrustworthy, and both needed help.


You also said this "Pride is the problem; people thinking they can do good and somehow make the world a better place through united human effort and reason alone."

Of course people can make the world a better place! People abolished slavery for example. It wasn't God (he seems to endorse it in the OT).

 

[Danny777]

You would rather go to heaven with the Catholic Priests despite their obvious disregard for other people, just because they've said they believe in Jesus.

I know you haven't said you'd rather go with these people, but you are praising a God who has made up these rules and thereby endorsing these rules. If you think the rules don't make sense then don't praise the God.

A catholic priest "saying" he believes in Jesus does not mean he actually "does" believe in Jesus. If a priest says he believes in Jesus and then ritually abuses children I think its pretty obvious he doesn't! Which part of Jesus teachings do you think are consistent with abusing children??

You last question: So Jesus and Jimmy Savile come up to me, one says he is the son of God and can fly, and the other says he doesn't like children and winks. Who do I trust? Both I'd think were untrustworthy, and both needed help.

If Jesus comes up to you, performs miracles, lives a perfect live, gets executed to then rise again on the third day (as He predicted Himself) and then tells you the "terms and conditions" for entry to heaven/hell - would you then not take serious notice?

I'm a little surprised you are implying the lives are Jesus Christ and Jimmy Saville can be compared on equal terms. If the accounts of Jesus Christ are accurate (I agree that is an "if"!) you would be crazy not to take notice of what He says...

Of course people can make the world a better place! People abolished slavery for example. It wasn't God (he seems to endorse it in the OT).

This is absurd - Christians acting of the conviction of their faith were INSTRUMENTAL in abolishing slavery. Surely the least you have to admit is that followers of Jesus Christ when acting consistently with their faith (which unfortunately doesn't happen often enough) can only contribute to making the world a better place. I am NOT saying atheists cannot also make the world a better place, but you have linked slavery with Christianity!! Either you do not understand the Christian faith at all or this is cheap and unnecessary swipe? Did you REALLY not know that Christians tirelessly fought to abolish slavery?

Which of the teachings of Jesus Christ would hinder the process of making the world a better place?

 

[Gadarene]

A catholic priest "saying" he believes in Jesus does not mean he actually "does" believe in Jesus. If a priest says he believes in Jesus and then ritually abuses children I think its pretty obvious he doesn't! Which part of Jesus teachings do you think are consistent with abusing children??

So it's not possible for someone to sincerely believe and still sin, even grievously?

If Jesus comes up to you, performs miracles, lives a perfect live, gets executed to then rise again on the third day (as He predicted Himself) and then tells you the "terms and conditions" for entry to heaven/hell - would you then not take serious notice?

Yes, absolutely. It would be considerably more convincing than people asserting that ancient second and third-hand accounts are definitely true.

Couldn't honestly say it would be absolutely convincing, but it would be a decent starting point.

I'm a little surprised you are implying the lives are Jesus Christ and Jimmy Saville can be compared on equal terms. If the accounts of Jesus Christ are accurate (I agree that is an "if"!) you would be crazy not to take notice of what He says...

The comparison was not made by Tony.

Again - I suggest you take that comparison up with Ian, as it was his strawman.

This is absurd - Christians acting of the conviction of their faith were INSTRUMENTAL in abolishing slavery.

Once those convictions were done maintaining the practice.

It's good that you eventually sorted out the problem you started.

Surely the least you have to admit is that followers of Jesus Christ when acting consistently with their faith (which unfortunately doesn't happen often enough) can only contribute to making the world a better place. I am NOT saying atheists cannot also make the world a better place, but you have linked slavery with Christianity!! Either you do not understand the Christian faith at all or this is cheap and unnecessary swipe? Did you REALLY not know that Christians tirelessly fought to abolish slavery?

Which of the teachings of Jesus Christ would hinder the process of making the world a better place?

I don't know, but I can cite you several Biblical teachings about the keeping of slaves.

 

[tonybeer]

A catholic priest "saying" he believes in Jesus does not mean he actually "does" believe in Jesus. If a priest says he believes in Jesus and then ritually abuses children I think its pretty obvious he doesn't! Which part of Jesus teachings do you think are consistent with abusing children??

That is EXACTLY the point I was making. You are now judging him on his actions, not on his belief in Jesus.

Ian was saying that someones actions are no part of the heaven/hell judgement process. This is apparently fundamental to Christianity, yet given what you've just said you clearly don't agree with this.

Or you could be saying anyone who sins doesn't believe in Jesus. I don't think you are saying this as from what I gather Christians believe everyone is a sinner.

I believe the law exists, yet I can break it. I still believe it exists when I break it.

This Catholic Priest believes in Jesus. Does he go to heaven?

 

[Danny777]

According to the teachings of Jesus EVERYONE is guilty of sin and therefore a sinner. This is why distance exists between mankind and God. The ONLY way to bridge this gap and be acceptable for heaven is by having Jesus' perfectness imputed to us by faith in Him. A true Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus' work on their behalf - it cannot be earned in any way. It is possible for ANYONE to approach Christ at any time and therefore be "granted" a ticket to heaven. We CANNOT know who is a true believer and its probably unwise to speculate. Only God knows who are truly His...

As a result of giving ones life to Jesus IT IS POSSIBLE to sin and CERTAIN that a Christian will make mistakes. The difference is that the Christian should seriously endeavor avoid sin, NOT because anything will be earned in the process BUT out of a genuine desire to please God. I often sum it up by saying that a Christian may "fall" into sin but should not "habitually" sin - this comment may be objected to by other Christians and it may not be viewed as accurate for all...

The catholic priest who abuses children: Do you think this Catholic priest who habitually and serially abuses children is acting like someone who is genuinely trying to please God? Please answer seriously...if you think yes, please show me some teaching of Jesus that they would use as justification. It would be my suspicion that they are often peadophiles who deliberately seek recruitment as priests (by saying whatever needs to be said) to gain access to children and have no interest whatsoever in genuinely following Christ. (I admit I may wrong...). I think it is VERY unlikely that a priest that systematically abuses children is acting in a way that is consistent with a follower of Christ and I would speculate that such a priest is therefore not a saved Christian BUT I STRESS that this is not for me to say - GOD knows who are genuinely His...that is all that will matter...

RE. slavery:

Christians fought against slavery NOT because it would earn them access to heaven - it is because the wanted to please God and demonstrate the value of all human life. Surely you would commend this?! A Christian has a strong motivation for such action because Jesus taught that ALL human life was valuable and injustice was to be fought against. The Bible acknowledged the reality of slavery at that time, but does NOT condone it. I might add that the atheist worldview would NOT of itself naturally object against slavery as it does for the Christian. Before you start screaming, I am NOT suggesting that an atheist would not oppose slavery (many do) - my point is the atheism as a worldview would not have the same reasons to object to it as it would for the Christian. If we are all animals fighting for survival how would ones "position" as an atheist naturally lead to the protection and cause of the weakest in society. Again I stress that many atheists are fine people but NOT because of their atheism. Of course, Christian belief can be and is abused as well but this is AGAINST its teachings. The church has on many occasions committed atrocities - only this is clearly CONTRARY to the teachings of Jesus.

I am no defender of the church so there is no point listings all the bad things it has done...

There are VERY good role models who are atheists and others that look to everyone else like good and upright people and contribute much to making the world a better place. However, it is not this measurement of other humans that will be applicable when before God - it will be a measurement of Gods standards which is why the Bible teaches us we ALL need a rescuer.

I've run out of time and probably explained things badly so apologies in advance...!

 

[Gadarene]

As a result of giving ones life to Jesus IT IS POSSIBLE to sin and CERTAIN that a Christian will make mistakes. The difference is that the Christian should seriously endeavor avoid sin, NOT because anything will be earned in the process BUT out of a genuine desire to please God. I often sum it up by saying that a Christian may "fall" into sin but should not "habitually" sin - this comment may be objected to by other Christians and it may not be viewed as accurate for all...

The catholic priest who abuses children: Do you think this Catholic priest who habitually and serially abuses children is acting like someone who is genuinely trying to please God? Please answer seriously...if you think yes, please show me some teaching of Jesus that they would use as justification. It would be my suspicion that they are often peadophiles who deliberately seek recruitment as priests (by saying whatever needs to be said) to gain access to children and have no interest whatsoever in genuinely following Christ. (I admit I may wrong...). I think it is VERY unlikely that a priest that systematically abuses children is acting in a way that is consistent with a follower of Christ and I would speculate that such a priest is therefore not a saved Christian BUT I STRESS that this is not for me to say - GOD knows who are genuinely His...that is all that will matter...

You don't think it at all possible that some genuine Christians have struggles with particular sins, even sins that serious?

Besides, forgiveness just sweeps all that aside if it's sincere.

Christians fought against slavery NOT because it would earn them access to heaven - it is because the wanted to please God and demonstrate the value of all human life. Surely you would commend this?!

Sure, but they are doing it in spite of what the Bible says in places.

A Christian has a strong motivation for such action because Jesus taught that ALL human life was valuable and injustice was to be fought against. The Bible acknowledged the reality of slavery at that time, but does NOT condone it. I might add that the atheist worldview would NOT of itself naturally object against slavery as it does for the Christian.

The Bible doesn't object against slavery. In the OT it outright encourages it, and in the NT it's more concerned about having slaves not rock the boat than making strong statements on it.

Before you start screaming, I am NOT suggesting that an atheist would not oppose slavery (many do) - my point is the atheism as a worldview would not have the same reasons to object to it as it would for the Christian.

Atheism is not a worldview. It's a lack of belief in deities. That's it. All else is optional.

If we are all animals fighting for survival how would ones "position" as an atheist naturally lead to the protection and cause of the weakest in society.

You forget that survival can result from cooperation and pro-social behaviours as well as cutthroat individualism.

Again I stress that many atheists are fine people but NOT because of their atheism.

Indeed, but you misunderstand as to why. Again, atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It is no more than that. Survival of the fittest does not necessarily follow from atheism, for example.

Of course, Christian belief can be and is abused as well but this is AGAINST its teachings. The church has on many occasions committed atrocities - only this is clearly CONTRARY to the teachings of Jesus.

Possibly, but that's a matter of interpretation. In the matter of slavery, you are simply incorrect - the Bible does not condemn it, and in many places encourages it.

 

[tonybeer]

Danny - as Gadarene suggest it might be best to try and understand what Atheism is (just as you need to read up a lot more on evolution if you wish to understand it). There is no worldview, just the lack of belief in your claim that there is a God.

"Do you think this Catholic priest who habitually and serially abuses children is acting like someone who is genuinely trying to please God?"

I have no idea of his beliefs.

But it doesn't matter if he is trying to please God, the criteria is believing in Jesus. At least this is what I seem to be being told here.

Unless the criteria is now, you must try to please God to get to heaven. How do you please God - by following his rules.

Therefore following rules = get into heaven.


On slavery, I quote the bible:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

So as long as you don't kill them instantly, you can hit them as hard as possible, and they can die a week later from their injuries.


You keep implying Atheism means Atheists want to act like animals. Why? There are countries where the majority are non theists. They tend to be the most peaceful and with the most caring society, in terms of looking after the poor/disabled etc, just the opposite of what you describe.

You've got this very strange perception of Atheism and although I'm not going to convince you that it is likely there is no God, can I at least try and let you have a correct understanding of the Atheist position?

Atheism is not a world view. You yourself are an atheist when it comes to 99% of religions. An Atheist just goes one tiny step further.

 

[Danny777]

Danny - as Gadarene suggest it might be best to try and understand what Atheism is (just as you need to read up a lot more on evolution if you wish to understand it). There is no worldview, just the lack of belief in your claim that there is a God.

You are probably right here - I need to read more...

"Do you think this Catholic priest who habitually and serially abuses children is acting like someone who is genuinely trying to please God?"

I have no idea of his beliefs.

But it doesn't matter if he is trying to please God, the criteria is believing in Jesus. At least this is what I seem to be being told here.

Unless the criteria is now, you must try to please God to get to heaven. How do you please God - by following his rules.

Therefore following rules = get into heaven.

I don't really understand this paragraph.

Believing in Jesus is the criteria for "getting into heaven". This believe will then LEAD to trying to please God - they go hand in hand. You are picking the most EXTREME example possible re. Catholic priests and trying to play games.

If I haven't explained the gospel clearly enough in my previous post, can I suggest you read John's gospel...then come back to me if you don't understand...

On slavery, I quote the bible:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

So as long as you don't kill them instantly, you can hit them as hard as possible, and they can die a week later from their injuries.

This was directed ONLY towards the nation of Israel around 4,000 years ago and was a MUCH HIGHER standard of treatment than existed at the time for "slaves" with many other groups of people. For you to then make the link and accuse Christians of promoting slavery seems like a dishonest representation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am not an Israelite - I am a Christian. Please show me how Jesus Christ PROMOTED the use of slavery - you will also have to explain why Christians (trying to follow the teachings Jesus Christ) fought so tirelessly against slavery on conviction of their faith, if, as you are implying the Christian faith and slavery are clearly linked.

You keep implying Atheism means Atheists want to act like animals. Why? There are countries where the majority are non theists. They tend to be the most peaceful and with the most caring society, in terms of looking after the poor/disabled etc, just the opposite of what you describe.

You've got this very strange perception of Atheism and although I'm not going to convince you that it is likely there is no God, can I at least try and let you have a correct understanding of the Atheist position?

Atheism is not a world view. You yourself are an atheist when it comes to 99% of religions. An Atheist just goes one tiny step further.

I never implied atheism are not also capable of immense good - read my last post again. I admit I had/have misconceptions about atheism - I am learning!

You often accuse me of misunderstanding atheism - I admit this is case -you then go and quote the Bible at me TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT!! Can I suggest you also have misconceptions about believe in Jesus Christ. You have advised me to read up on atheism - maybe you should also read one of the gospel accounts if you really want to understand faith in Jesus Christ. At times it feels you are deliberately manipulating Bible passages to arrive at conclusions you probably know are not consistent with the Christian faith.

Please read at least one of the gospels(if you are genuinely interested) - this will explain any misconception of heaven/hell and conduct for Christians far more clearly than I can...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This was directed ONLY towards the nation of Israel around 4,000 years ago and was a MUCH HIGHER standard of treatment than existed at the time for "slaves" with many other groups of people. For you to then make the link and accuse Christians of promoting slavery seems like a dishonest representation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I am not an Israelite - I am a Christian. Please show me how Jesus Christ PROMOTED the use of slavery - you will also have to explain why Christians (trying to follow the teachings Jesus Christ) fought so tirelessly against slavery on conviction of their faith, if, as you are implying the Christian faith and slavery are clearly linked.

To be fair, Jesus is never quoted as saying anything either for or against slavery, so in that respect you have no more reason to claim that Jesus disapproved of slavery than somebody who claims he approved of it. However, Luke 12:47-28 has Jesus condoning the beating of servants, so the implication would be that slaves could be beaten too. Given other NT texts it is not difficult to mount an argument that slavery was accepted when NT was written.

Either way, Jesus condoning the beating of anyone really ought to have you questioning the teaching of the gospels.