Tell 5 reasons why your way is good

[agua]

In this, we are in complete agreement.

As experiment Bhsmte, can you address the unresovled issue of how you decide upon the veracity of an ancient document, maybe using Plato's Apology as example.

I've found many Athiests will argue black and blue that the Bible is fiction, and yet they'll embrace other ancient documents. eg. The works of Plato. This implies confirmation bias, to me, but suggests to me that because the claims made in the Bible are confrontational , and require the attention and actions of the reader, that it is rejected out of hand, without the same latitude given to Plato etc.

( It's raining cats and dogs here on my tin roof )

 

[agua]

Why ?

Eternal life / judgement and destruction. Loving someone implies you wish the best for them.

On a related note, do you believe that people have freedom but it is held against them ? IOW, if God grants people freedom (assuming you may believe God does) ... does God do so because God, in actuality, is hating them ? Or is the freedom just a wink-trick, where even God knows it's "not really free" and that there really is no choice ?

I'll wait until you answer my question from post err. my last post to you, before we continue.

 

[bhsmte]

As experiment Bhsmte, can you address the unresovled issue of how you decide upon the veracity of an ancient document, maybe using Plato's Apology as example.

I've found many Athiests will argue black and blue that the Bible is fiction, and yet they'll embrace other ancient documents. eg. The works of Plato. This implies confirmation bias, to me, but suggests to me that because the claims made in the Bible are confrontational , and require the attention and actions of the reader, that it is rejected out of hand, without the same latitude given to Plato etc.

( It's raining cats and dogs here on my tin roof )

I am not familiar with the historicity behind anything to do with Plato, so I can not comment on the same.

When It comes to the historicity of the NT or an ancient documents or writings, I would investigate how these writings and the claims in them, hold up to critical analysis using the historical method.

Now, the historical method is not some perfect science by any means, but it does provide ground rules of how to go about assigning credibility to ancient writings. It requires work and extensive readings, to determine how the historical method, is applied to the NT and how certain NT historians, apply the same.

You see, the vast majority of NT historians over the years have themselves been Christian, which doesn't exactly provide the most objective platform to analyze the writings. Sort of like, having the tobacco companies own scientists, determine whether cigarette smoking is bad for your health.

But, as time has gone on, there has been good objective historical analysis applied to the NT and even some Christian historians agree, the NT is mostly a work of theology, as opposed to a work of historical credibility.

If one reads the works of enough well credentialed NT historians and read all types; conservative, moderate and liberal, the picture becomes much clearer, as to how the NT, holds up to historical method scrutiny and which of those historians, may be playing fast and loose with the historical method.

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't understand some of your questions ( eg. opportunity to resurrect not to eternal life ? ) but I'll try.

All humans will be resurrected; some to eternal life and some to judgement and destruction. Eternal life is immortality living in paradise ( a renewed Earth ) in the Kingdom of Yahweh, where there will be no more death/suffering/injustice etc etc and so you may imagine why Christians aren't focused ( or shouldn't be ) upon material wealth or pleasures etc here and now. ( our treasures are in heaven and will culminate in the new Earth after the resurrection) This life is a drop in the ocean compared to eternity which is why the resurrection is the most important subject.

Only Yahwehs' family will inherit eternal life, all others will be destroyed, after judgement.

Okay so you believe there is a chance people will go to destruction. Is it one of eternal torment/pain/suffering ? Or is it "ceasing" or some such ? I think you may have told me before, but I can't remember.

If it's to some sort of torment/pain/suffering which never ends ... what is the solution you believe to be to this, and what you are doing to facilitate it ?

Can I ask TillICollapse, do you believe in justice ?

Hmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I can say that I believe in it, but I don't know that I've ever experienced it. So at this point in time, it's a "belief" I have. But little evidence for me personally, even anecdotal (obviously).

I can also say, that my view of "justice" would not involve some type of eternal pain and suffering or torment of another living thing. I can understand temporary consequences, and I can understand "ending" someone or something. But eternal, never ending pain or suffering of some kind ? I can't imagine wishing that on the worst individual I can conceive of. I don't see where that would bring me "justice", or any victims, etc. Even on my worst days where I simply cannot tolerate other human beings for their ignorance, violence, horrific choices, etc ... I have not wished "eternal violence" upon them. I would not wish that on myself, I would not wish that on another. What I can understand, is how anyone who would be okay with that, could be seen as an "enemy" to life itself, so to speak.

Your faith is the conduit for Yahweh's grace, which decides whether you will inherit eternal life, or not.

I wasn't asking your definition so to speak, rather it seemed as though you were comparing the way we took our "faith" seriously or not, etc. I didn't see where your opinion of how serious I took my faith (and I define faith differently than you) came into play from the convo we were having.

 

[TillICollapse]

Eternal life / judgement and destruction. Loving someone implies you wish the best for them.



I'll wait until you answer my question from post err. my last post to you, before we continue.

I'm answering these posts out of order, because I had some pages open and forgot to refresh my browser when I returned to respond So I'm reading things from bottom to top lol ....

 

[agua]

Okay so you believe there is a chance people will go to destruction. Is it one of eternal torment/pain/suffering ? Or is it "ceasing" or some such ? I think you may have told me before, but I can't remember.

If it's to some sort of torment/pain/suffering which never ends ... what is the solution you believe to be to this, and what you are doing to facilitate it ?

The second death ( the death of unbelievers after judgement ) is destruction. This means they cease to exist, forever. There's no reasonable or logical or just position that satsifies eternal conscious torment ECT.

ECT is also contrary to Yahweh's character.

Hmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I can say that I believe in it, but I don't know that I've ever experienced it. So at this point in time, it's a "belief" I have. But little evidence for me personally, even anecdotal (obviously).

I can also say, that my view of "justice" would not involve some type of eternal pain and suffering or torment of another living thing. I can understand temporary consequences, and I can understand "ending" someone or something. But eternal, never ending pain or suffering of some kind ? I can't imagine wishing that on the worst individual I can conceive of. I don't see where that would bring me "justice", or any victims, etc. Even on my worst days where I simply cannot tolerate other human beings for their ignorance, violence, horrific choices, etc ... I have not wished "eternal violence" upon them. I would not wish that on myself, I would not wish that on another. What I can understand, is how anyone who would be okay with that, could be seen as an "enemy" to life itself, so to speak.

I agree, ECT is unjust. Humans will be judged "according to what they've done", no more no less.

I wasn't asking your definition so to speak, rather it seemed as though you were comparing the way we took our "faith" seriously or not, etc. I didn't see where your opinion of how serious I took my faith (and I define faith differently than you) came into play from the convo we were having.

We have no base point here TillICollapse because my faith is based upon Yahweh, Jesus, the Cross and the resurrection, which you don't feel veracious about. I have no idea how you describe your faith and the importance it is to you, and why.

How serious do you take your faith ?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

1. I care about people
2. I care about social structure
3. I honor other cultures
4. I love myself
5. I seek to spread the message of self love

 

[agua]

I am not familiar with the historicity behind anything to do with Plato, so I can not comment on the same.

When It comes to the historicity of the NT or an ancient documents or writings, I would investigate how these writings and the claims in them, hold up to critical analysis using the historical method.

Now, the historical method is not some perfect science by any means, but it does provide ground rules of how to go about assigning credibility to ancient writings. It requires work and extensive readings, to determine how the historical method, is applied to the NT and how certain NT historians, apply the same.

You see, the vast majority of NT historians over the years have themselves been Christian, which doesn't exactly provide the most objective platform to analyze the writings. Sort of like, having the tobacco companies own scientists, determine whether cigarette smoking is bad for your health.

But, as time has gone on, there has been good objective historical analysis applied to the NT and even some Christian historians agree, the NT is mostly a work of theology, as opposed to a work of historical credibility.

If one reads the works of enough well credentialed NT historians and read all types; conservative, moderate and liberal, the picture becomes much clearer, as to how the NT, holds up to historical method scrutiny and which of those historians, may be playing fast and loose with the historical method.

Ok. I've read your assessment before of the historicity of the Bible, and for the moment I'd like to addess how you will apply this method to Plato's writings.

No one that I know denies that Plato existed, and yet he has only 7 or 8 works ( no originals ). Why is this ? I assume that you accept Plato existed without any investigation, as you stated.

Oh I'll need a source for this-

"But, as time has gone on, there has been good objective historical analysis applied to the NT and even some Christian historians agree, the NT is mostly a work of theology, as opposed to a work of historical credibility."

 

[TillICollapse]

The second death ( the death of unbelievers after judgement ) is destruction. This means they cease to exist, forever. There's no reasonable or logical or just position that satsifies eternal conscious torment ECT.

ECT is also contrary to Yahweh's character.



I agree, ECT is unjust. Humans will be judged "according to what they've done", no more no less.

Okay this explains a bit more then about your own perspective.

So in what way, then, is resurrection to eternal life the most important issue ? If it's simply a matter of, some will attain it, and some will come to an end ... why is it THE main issue in your opinion ?

And what is "ECT" ? Yet another thing I looked up quickly to no definitive effect. (Like when you used POS hahaha)

We have no base point here TillICollapse because my faith is based upon Yahweh, Jesus, the Cross and the resurrection, which you don't feel veracious about. I have no idea how you describe your faith and the importance it is to you, and why.

How serious do you take your faith ?

Actually when it comes to how "serious" I take my faith or not, I try to let my actions speak louder than my words, and let people draw their own conclusions from that if they go that route. This is often why I value people's experiences, stories, etc. It actually gives back story to their words, and shows me the practical ways in which they've actually tried to explore their own beliefs, faith, desires, concerns, etc. So I don't like answering questions like that with what I think of my ownself, because to me ... that cheapens it and is about as valuable as a claim without evidence. If a person wants to know how serious I take my faith, they can ask me about my own past and life, or walk some of it with me ... maybe lol

Saying I don't feel veracious about Yahweh, Jesus, the Cross and the resurrection ... not sure why you think that or why you are drawing these conclusions.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok. I've read your assessment before of the historicity of the Bible, and for the moment I'd like to addess how you will apply this method to Plato's writings.

Was I not clear before? If I was to personally investigate ancient writings and historicity of a person or writings, I would investigate historians work on the subject and I would be looking very closely, at how they applied the historical method and how they reached their conclusions.

Since I have zero desire to investigate the historicity of Plato, I will not be doing so.

No one that I know denies that Plato existed, and yet he has only 7 or 8 works ( no originals ). Why is this ? I assume that you accept Plato existed without any investigation, as you stated.

As I already stated, I have no opinion on the historicity of Plato, because I have not investigated the same. For this reason, I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming anything.

Oh I'll need a source for this-

"But, as time has gone on, there has been good objective historical analysis applied to the NT and even some Christian historians agree, the NT is mostly a work of theology, as opposed to a work of historical credibility."

I am not going to turn this thread, into an apologetics thread in regards to historicity of the NT. If you want sources on historicity of the NT, google will provide you with more than you could handle. Simply google; historicity of the NT.

Now, as I have stated before, I was a Christian for a long time and never really investigated the NT in any serious way and actually started my investigation, with the thought of getting clarity and support from the NT.

What happened from that point, was not anticipated, regarding what my investigations discovered and took me down a road, I could not ignore, because the evidence was something I could not ignore.

Lastly, I am the type of person, who rolls over every rock in an attempt to investigate any topic. I don't settle for the source that may be comforting, I devour everything I can get my hands on, from various sources and when it comes to the NT, it involved; consuming the work of conservative Christian historians, moderate historians and liberal historians. After a while, it became clearer to me, which of these people, applied the historical method in the most objective way, which is what was important to me.

 

[agua]

Was I not clear before? If I was to personally investigate ancient writings and historicity of a person or writings, I would investigate historians work on the subject and I would be looking very closely, at how they applied the historical method and how they reached their conclusions.

Since I have zero desire to investigate the historicity of Plato, I will not be doing so.

As I already stated, I have no opinion on the historicity of Plato, because I have not investigated the same. For this reason, I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming anything.

Just to be clear, does this imply that you neither believe, nor disbeleive, that Plato existed ? Also can you tell me if you belive that Julius Ceasar existed, or not. I'm ok if you choose to not believe in the existance of all ancient characters, until you investigate them, so long as you're consistant.

I am not going to turn this thread, into an apologetics thread in regards to historicity of the NT. If you want sources on historicity of the NT, google will provide you with more than you could handle. Simply google; historicity of the NT.

Now, as I have stated before, I was a Christian for a long time and never really investigated the NT in any serious way and actually started my investigation, with the thought of getting clarity and support from the NT.

What happened from that point, was not anticipated, regarding what my investigations discovered and took me down a road, I could not ignore, because the evidence was something I could not ignore.

Lastly, I am the type of person, who rolls over every rock in an attempt to investigate any topic. I don't settle for the source that may be comforting, I devour everything I can get my hands on, from various sources and when it comes to the NT, it involved; consuming the work of conservative Christian historians, moderate historians and liberal historians. After a while, it became clearer to me, which of these people, applied the historical method in the most objective way, which is what was important to me.

Ok yes you've told me this all before. My investigations have indicated that the OT and the NT are historically and theologically correct, and they harmonise with eachother, esp. when we see prophecy fulfilled and prophecy still to be fulfilled. It's brilliant !

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think you may be trolling me Archaeopteryx.

I am not. I am asking you to justify your claims. Is that too much to ask?

I've answered your questions before, seveal times, and to be sure that you aren't simply trolling i'll need you to exhibit that you at least acknowledged my answers. So as a test to avoid the merry go round.

What were my answers that I gave previously to these exact questions?

I'm giving you the opportunity to provide real answers, not the circular arguments you presented previously. If you want to continue spinning the merry-go-around, that's your choice.

In case you missed it, what P value do you assign to your belief that the Earth formed by natural means ?

Are you talking about the planet Earth? Based on what I've learned to date, I would assign it quite a high probability value, but not P=1. I could be wrong. Suppose, however, that I tried to emulate you and assigned it a P value of 1. Further, imagine if I argued that the idea the Earth was formed by natural means is self-evident. How would you respond?

 

[agua]

Okay this explains a bit more then about your own perspective.

So in what way, then, is resurrection to eternal life the most important issue ? If it's simply a matter of, some will attain it, and some will come to an end ... why is it THE main issue in your opinion ?

I'm afraid if you don't see the value in living forever in paradise, then anything I suggest will be unsatisfying, to you. Are you serious ?

And what is "ECT" ? Yet another thing I looked up quickly to no definitive effect. (Like when you used POS hahaha)

I explained ECT in the previous 3 words to where I used it. ECT = eternal conscious torment.

Actually when it comes to how "serious" I take my faith or not, I try to let my actions speak louder than my words, and let people draw their own conclusions from that if they go that route. This is often why I value people's experiences, stories, etc. It actually gives back story to their words, and shows me the practical ways in which they've actually tried to explore their own beliefs, faith, desires, concerns, etc. So I don't like answering questions like that with what I think of my ownself, because to me ... that cheapens it and is about as valuable as a claim without evidence. If a person wants to know how serious I take my faith, they can ask me about my own past and life, or walk some of it with me ... maybe lol

Yes Jesus said to observe the actions and beliefs of people. I've observed yours.

Saying I don't feel veracious about Yahweh, Jesus, the Cross and the resurrection ... not sure why you think that or why you are drawing these conclusions.

Ok TillICollapse now I think you're trolling.

 

[bhsmte]

Just to be clear, does this imply that you neither believe, nor disbeleive, that Plato existed ? Also can you tell me if you belive that Julius Ceasar existed, or not. I'm ok if you choose to not believe in the existance of all ancient characters, until you investigate them, so long as you're consistant.

I am aware that their is strong support for Ceasar existing by historians, but have not personally investigated how they came to this conclusion, using the historical method. I am also aware the bulk of historians support the existence of Jesus, as a real historical figure and I agree with them. The historical credibility of the NT, is a different issue, than whether Jesus was a real person.

Ok yes you've told me this all before. My investigations have indicated that the OT and the NT are historically and theologically correct, and they harmonise with eachother, esp. when we see prophecy fulfilled and prophecy still to be fulfilled. It's brilliant !

Ok, this is where we disagree.

 

[agua]

I'm giving you the opportunity to provide real answers, not the circular arguments you presented previously. If you want to continue spinning the merry-go-around, that's your choice.

Ok. To show me that you've at least read my previous answers, and acknowledged them, can you tell me what they are. Otherwise I'm not going around the mulberry bush, again

Are you talking about the planet Earth? Based on what I've learned to date, I would assign it quite a high probability value, but not P=1. I could be wrong. Suppose, however, that I tried to emulate you and assigned it a P value of 1. Further, imagine if I argued that the idea the Earth was formed by natural means is self-evident. How would you respond?

Yes I meant planet Earth, this is why I used capital E. I think this is good grammar tell me if I was wrong.

I'd ask you to tell me why it is self evident. In case you will ask me this again ( and again and again .... ); you will need to show me that you acknowledged my previous answers. If not I'm headed for the rollercoaster with Bhsmte, it at least moves forward, at times.

 

[agua]

I am aware that their is strong support for Ceasar existing by historians, but have not personally investigated how they came to this conclusion, using the historical method. I am also aware the bulk of historians support the existence of Jesus, as a real historical figure and I agree with them. The historical credibility of the NT, is a different issue, than whether Jesus was a real person.

Ok cool. I see that you accept the existance of ancient characters by the work of historians, this is my usual position too. Now we must investigate if we believe what is written about these ancient characters, and why.

Do you believe Pompeia was married to Julius Ceasar, because historians say so ?

Ok, this is where we disagree.

Yes.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm afraid if you don't see the value in living forever in paradise, then anything I suggest will be unsatisfying, to you. Are you serious ?

Yes I'm serious lol. I don't see why it's not a legitimate question ? I'm asking you why YOU think it's the most important issue. I wasn't asking what I found value or not in.

I explained ECT in the previous 3 words to where I used it. ECT = eternal conscious torment.

I totally missed that. I'm multi-tasking right now, and getting ready to take off here in a short while ... so I'm kind of starting to dart around a bit.

Yes Jesus said to observe the actions and beliefs of people. I've observed yours.

Where did Jesus say to observe the beliefs of other people ? I'd be curious. If It's obvious scriptures, I may simply not be having them come to mind. And you've observed my actions ? Arguably my own actions here are rather limited, but they are indeed *some* actions.

Ok TillICollapse now I think you're trolling.

Not at all. In fact, I think many of the convos in these threads are suddenly picking up this morning and getting interesting ... which is unfortunate because I'm going to be leaving here in a short while and no doubt fall behind lol.

If you EVER think I'm trolling, ask me and I'll tell you if I'm being serious, or playing you along, etc. I am not trolling. If for some reason I'm actually getting under your skin, in all honesty, I'm not even trying to nor did I get the feeling that I even was. To me trolling=trying to get under someone's skin, or just being obviously disengenous for the lolz. And I'm not doing that either.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok. To show me that you've at least read my previous answers, and acknowledged them, can you tell me what they are. Otherwise I'm not going around the mulberry bush, again



Yes I meant planet Earth, this is why I used capital E. I think this is good grammar tell me if I was wrong.

I'd ask you to tell me why it is self evident. In case you will ask me this again ( and again and again .... ); you will need to show me that you acknowledged my previous answers. If not I'm headed for the rollercoaster with Bhsmte, it at least moves forward, at times.

Are you trolling me agua? I've already stated that it is self-evident.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok cool. I see that you accept the existance of ancient characters by the work of historians, this is my usual position too. Now we must investigate if we believe what is written about these ancient characters, and why.

I have told you, I have personally investigated the work of NT historians on the historical credibility of the writings. My personal conclusion is, the NT is mostly a work of theology and not a work of historical accuracy and many NT historians hold this view.

Again, I will not turn this into apologetics on this issue, but anyone who wants to find well credentialed historians who hold this opinion, can easily find them and examine how they apply the historical method to reach them.

Do you believe Pompeia was married to Julius Ceasar, because historians say so ?

No opinion.

 

[agua]

Yes I'm serious lol. I don't see why it's not a legitimate question ? I'm asking you why YOU think it's the most important issue. I wasn't asking what I found value or not in.

I can't imagine any life better than living forever in paradise with no suffering etc.

I totally missed that. I'm multi-tasking right now, and getting ready to take off here in a short while ... so I'm kind of starting to dart around a bit.

Where did Jesus say to observe the beliefs of other people ? I'd be curious. If It's obvious scriptures, I may simply not be having them come to mind. And you've observed my actions ? Arguably my own actions here are rather limited, but they are indeed *some* actions.

I'm not going to quote scripture with you, because you've said that you don't believe the Bible is Yahweh's word, so why?

Oh ok here's a start.

Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Mat 7:22-23 KJV Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Not at all. In fact, I think many of the convos in these threads are suddenly picking up this morning and getting interesting ... which is unfortunate because I'm going to be leaving here in a short while and no doubt fall behind lol.

If you EVER think I'm trolling, ask me and I'll tell you if I'm being serious, or playing you along, etc. I am not trolling. If for some reason I'm actually getting under your skin, in all honesty, I'm not even trying to nor did I get the feeling that I even was. To me trolling=trying to get under someone's skin, or just being obviously disengenous for the lolz. And I'm not doing that either.

From previous discussions I don't accept this. You don't get under my skin ( what a horrible thought ), but if you reveal something, and then say something contrary to previous discussions, this is either because you have a very poor memory, or that you're trolling imo. I suggest trolling, it's common on forums.

I have no need to trust you because your words and actions speak about you, and if you're trolling, you wouldn't tell me the truth, anyways .