Why does God leave no tracks?

[JonFromMinnesota]

There is Josephus and I think some others but I don't recall their names.

Josephus was born in 37. He's not a contemporary source and the authenticity of his mentioning of Jesus has been heavily disputed.

That isn't evidence though and scholars differ on what dates they think they were written anyways. Someone could have been writing things down as things happened, or decades later...it's impossible to know.

What scholar says that it is contemporary? Everything that I have read from many different sources put's the dates for Mark at 60-65. These gospels are also anonymous. We don't know who wrote them.

 

[rockytopva]

I suspect I asked this question before in a different form, because I wonder about it a lot. Sometimes I like to imagine a benevolent God that I can talk to and so forth. I tell myself that maybe the Judeo Christian God is fiction, but my more generic chameleon-like God might actually exist.

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks. Then there is the imaginary friend possibility. Imaginary friends serve a purpose and leave tracks in the real world even though they exist only in a human's imagination. I suppose the imaginary friend God that exists in human imaginations leaves tracks. Is it possible that God is real, but He restricts Himself to our imaginations? In other words, there is a real God that inspires humans to create imaginary friend Gods in their minds that then interact with the world? Could science tell if there was a real God behind these imaginary friend Gods?

I simply know God because I have sensed his Holy Spirit. Made a video on one of our church services and you could tell God was with us.

 

[ewq1938]

These gospels are also anonymous. We don't know who wrote them.

lol, but we know when they were written? Come on now...

I mentioend Josephus because he could have spoken with people who lived when Jesus did.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

lol, but we know when they were written? Come on now...

Can you point out in any of the gospels where they identify themselves? Spoiler alert....they don't. They are anonymous.
Why would not knowing who wrote them have anything to do with when they were written?

I mentioend Josephus because he could have spoken with people who lived when Jesus did.

Still....not a contemporary source. There were other historians in the area at the time. Not a single one wrote anything about Jesus. You'd think with all these crazy miracles going on, someone would have wrote it down. Nobody did. All we have is oral reports decades later. Oral reports get changed drastically over time. Have you ever played 'telephone'? (Also known as Chinese Whispers). It's kind of like that.

 

[ewq1938]

Can you point out in any of the gospels where they identify themselves? Spoiler alert....they don't. They are anonymous.

lol, spoiler alert...I didn't say they are identified. I'm pointing out a contradiction in your beliefs...since we DON'T know who wrote them how in the world can we know WHEN they were written.

Why would not knowing who wrote them have anything to do with when they were written.

That isn't obvious?

Still....not a contemporary source.

Contemporary sources would make it contemporary.

There were other historians in the area at the time. Not a single one wrote anything about Jesus.

lol....you have no idea what was written or not. Very little ever survives.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

lol, spoiler alert...I didn't say they are identified. I'm pointing out a contradiction in your beliefs...since we DON'T know who wrote them how in the world can we know WHEN they were written.

I'm not sure why you think you need to know who wrote something in order to date it. Biblical scholars who intimately study the texts put the dates that they were written decades after the alleged events. The scholarly consensus on Matthew and Luke is that they were written independently from one another in the the year 80-90.

Mark's ending was also written much later and differs in style and it's understanding of Jesus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Contemporary sources would make it contemporary.

Can you provide a contemporary source? Could you name one person who knew Jesus, talked to Jesus and wrote about Jesus outside of the bible. I'm looking for a source written DURING the alleged events. Is there such a source? It's a yes or no question. "Not much survives" is just doing a gymnastic around this troubling fact.

lol....you have no idea what was written or not. Very little ever survives.

Then why should I believe that such a source exists? Isn't this supposed to be the most important message given to mankind? Surely a benevolent God wouldn't let such important information just disappear.

 

[Xalith]

Still....not a contemporary source. There were other historians in the area at the time. Not a single one wrote anything about Jesus. You'd think with all these crazy miracles going on, someone would have wrote it down. Nobody did. All we have is oral reports decades later. Oral reports get changed drastically over time. Have you ever played 'telephone'? (Also known as Chinese Whispers). It's kind of like that.

Try to remember what was going on during Jesus's day.

1). The Jews were doing everything they could to silence Jesus. People who Jesus healed were banned from synagogues, and Jesus Himself told them to keep quiet about their healings and that they should merely donate to the synagogues and Temple and worship God in thanksgiving.

2). The Jews very heavily persecuted Early Christians, even the Apostles. They stoned Stephen, and nearly all of the apostles were martyred because of the opposition. It's a miracle we even have the gospels in the first place.

3). The Romans besieged Jerusalem in 70AD and burned everything to the ground, and slaughtered a lot of people and tore the Temple down. Many records and writings were probably lost in this as well.

All of these things together would contribute to there being a lack of contemporary writings about Jesus, and why the Gospels were likely written near 70AD or after. The Early Christian Church was likely held in secret in peoples' houses to avoid persecution by Jews and the Romans alike, and any traditions were shared orally until Paul started writing to the various cities in his epistles.

 

[ewq1938]

Try to remember what was going on during Jesus's day.

1). The Jews were doing everything they could to silence Jesus. People who Jesus healed were banned from synagogues, and Jesus Himself told them to keep quiet about their healings and that they should merely donate to the synagogues and Temple and worship God in thanksgiving.

2). The Jews very heavily persecuted Early Christians, even the Apostles. They stoned Stephen, and nearly all of the apostles were martyred because of the opposition. It's a miracle we even have the gospels in the first place.

3). The Romans besieged Jerusalem in 70AD and burned everything to the ground, and slaughtered a lot of people and tore the Temple down. Many records and writings were probably lost in this as well.

Seems a bit odd people would have waited some 40 years to write anything down don't you think? I think it's safe to say that the Roman's destroyed whatever they found and the gospels survived because people smuggled them to safety which means the gospels were likely already written and many copies existed by AD70. But documents like this can only survive by having new copies made because of their fragility which is why we have so few and such incomplete manuscripts.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

All of these things together would contribute to there being a lack of contemporary writings about Jesus, and why the Gospels were likely written near 70AD or after.

Yet the Epic of Gilgamesh survived. It's oldest versions are dated to 2000 B.C.E

But what is supposed to be the most important message doesn't have any surviving contemporaries? I don't buy it.

The Early Christian Church was likely held in secret in peoples' houses to avoid persecution by Jews and the Romans alike, and any traditions were shared orally until Paul started writing to the various cities in his epistles.

This is a bit of special pleading. Even if there were destroyed contemporaries, how can you be certain the stories remained unchanged? Oral stories passed down for decades are entirely unreliable in my opinion. I can play a game of telephone in a room of 50 people and the original story will be unrecognizable when the game is finished. Am I supposed to believe oral traditions not written down until decades later will be exactly what allegedly was going on? I doubt it.

 

[cloudyday2]

@cloudyday2 : You say you like God and Christ, but not Christianity... to that, I ask... what about Christianity don't you like?

Chances are, what you've been taught/what you heard is either false, misrepresented, or otherwise skewed. If you like Christ, then you should want to be one of His, and you should want to follow His ways which is what Christianity is meant to be in the first place.

Well, the whole crucifixion was stupid and unnecessary. Blood, blood, blood. Spread the blood of a lamb on the lintel of your door so that God won't kill your first born child. Drink the blood of Jesus and eat his flesh every week for communion. And Christians worry about their children watching scary movies LOL. My childhood church had stained glass windows decorated with macabre scenes of decapitations, corpses, ... and of course a grisly Jesus hanging on a cross.

Of course if you look up Hell on Wikipedia (here let me help you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell ), I mean take a look at that religious "artwork".

It's simply unbelievable that 2 billion earthlings follow such a ghastly religion and think it is beautiful. It shows the power of childhood indoctrination.

If there is a God and a Jesus, then their religion must be different from Christianity. Maybe they endure the stupidity of Christianity to reach those 2 billion believers, but the real story must be something different. Maybe if the 2000 years of barnacles were washed-off Christianity, then we would see something less ridiculous.

(And I'm sorry if my description of Christianity hurts anybody. I suppose it might be like talking about how ugly I think your mother is. Sorry about that if so. I know that the Christians themselves are decent people, and they think those things are beautiful. To me, they make no sense and they are ugly.)

 

[Xalith]

Well, the whole crucifixion was stupid and unnecessary.

Please watch what you say, before you say it. Try to understand what it really means, before offering your opinions on it. I say that, not as someone offended, but as someone pleading with you to learn about what the stuff actually means.

God told the Israelites when they were in the desert, that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin. That's when He instituted the animal sacrifice system in Judaism, and gave those laws to Moses and ordained that. However, the blood of rams and goats could never pay for the sins of mankind; He had a better plan: the perfect sacrifice.

Sin leads to death. Everyone is guilty of sin, and the crimes must be punished. However, God does not want every single man and woman who has ever lived to perish in Hell, so He placed all of the sins that Mankind has ever committed on His only Son, the only One who has ever lived in the world Who had no sin in Him, and had Him crucified on the Cross.

He paid the price in our stead. That is how we can be Saved. The only two things God asks us to do, is to repent and agree that our sins are grievous and unclean, and to accept His Son as payment for those sins, and believe that His sacrifice can and will save us.

Blood, blood, blood. Spread the blood of a lamb on the lentil of your door so that God won't kill your first born child.

This was a one-time event during the captivity in Egypt, and it was both to symbolize the relationship between blood, sin, and the firstborn and also to test the Jews' faith.

When God tells someone to do something, they should do it regardless if they understand why. That's what God was trying to get across here. "I told you to do it... just do it."

Drink the blood of Jesus and eat his flesh every week for communion.

This is symbolic, and done for remembrance of the Day that God purchased Salvation for us all. Without the Cross, we are doomed. There's nothing we can do otherwise. When one receives communion, they remember the body that was broken, they remember the blood that was shed to pay for our redemption. It is supposed to be a somber, but yet hope-inspiring thing, that we should never forget the price He paid, just to save us.

And Christians worry about their children watching scary movies LOL. My childhood church had stained glass windows decorated with macabre scenes of decapitations, corpses, ... and of course a grisly Jesus hanging on a cross.

Some churches, I think go a little too far. I will agree there.

Of course if you look up Hell on Wikipedia (here let me help you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell ), I mean take a look at that religious "artwork".

It's simply unbelievable that 2 billion earthlings follow such a ghastly religion and think it is beautiful. It shows the power of childhood indoctrination.

Gloom & Doom preaching drives so many people away from Christianity, I will agree there. That is why I'd rather preach God's Love. If you repent and accept His Son, you needn't worry about the fire&brimstone of Hell.

If there is a God and a Jesus, then their religion must be different from Christianity. Maybe they endure the stupidity of Christianity to reach those 2 billion believers, but the real story must be something different. Maybe if the 2000 years of barnacles were washed-off Christianity, then we would see something less ridiculous.

Christianity is basically summed up in: Repent, believe in His sacrifice, Love God, and Love everybody else as yourself.

Man added a lot of stuff to it over the years (just like the Jews added 600+ laws to the original ones you see in Deuteronomy and Leviticus).

(And I'm sorry if my description of Christianity hurts anybody. I suppose it might be like talking about how ugly I think your mother is. Sorry about that if so. I know that the Christians themselves are decent people, and they think those things are beautiful. To me, they make no sense and they are ugly.)

It shouldn't hurt anyone if they take but a moment to understand that you're an unfortunate person who has been driven away because of a lack of preaching having to do with Love.

God is all about Love. If He didn't love us, He wouldn't have sent His son to die to pay for our sins. He humbled Himself so far, as to be born in a manger, to be wrapped in swaddlingclothes, and to die in the most humiliating and painful way ever devised to execute someone. He did this out of Love. His love for us.

Sin leads to death, and a price must be paid for it. He paid that price, but we have to accept this payment and agree that our sin is grievous and unclean.

EDIT: The reason why I asked you to be careful, is saying that the crucifixion is "unnecessary" is a rather strong blasphemy, though He'll forgive you if you repent, especially seeing as you don't appear to really understand what it was truly about.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

God told the Israelites when they were in the desert, that without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin.

First, there is no evidence that a group of people was wandering the desert. Israeli archaeologists have abandoned trying to find evidence as their work turned up absolutely nothing.

So a benevolent God has no other way to forgive sins? It must be a blood sacrifice?

However, the blood of rams and goats could never pay for the sins of mankind; He had a better plan: the perfect sacrifice.

The blood of rams and goats would not be payment for any type of sin. It's a superstitious ritual.
So now, instead of scapegoating animals, we're going to scapegoat a human being? I'm sorry, but this sounds so sadistic and disturbing. We are responsible for our own actions. Vicarious redemption is immoral.

Everyone is guilty of sin, and the guilty must be punished. However, God does not want every single man and woman who has ever lived to perish in Hell

If God is omniscient than he is responsible for "sin" as he knew beforehand what his creation would do. Created sick and then commanded to be well. And if you don't meet these commandments you will be punished with eternal torture. This sounds like a cruel experiment done by a vindictive being.

so He placed all of the sins that Mankind has ever committed on His only Son, the only One who has ever lived in the world Who had no sin in Him, and had Him crucified on the Cross.

This is the definition of scapegoating.
If you committed a horrible crime and were sentenced to death would it be moral for you to accept my offer to take your place in the electric chair? I argue that it would be immoral for you to do so. We're responsible for our own actions. If I wrong someone, it is my responsibility to correct that wrong to the best of my ability, accept the consequences and work towards being a better person. There is no vicarious redemption.

This was a one-time event during the captivity in Egypt, and it was both to symbolize the relationship between blood, sin, and the firstborn and also to test the Jews' faith.

Anyone who threatens the life of a child and calls it a "test of faith" deserves no respect or attention.

If the Abraham character was living today and threatened to kill his child with "God was testing me" as their defense, we'd call him a very disturbed and delusional individual. He'd be thrown into a mental institution and his child would be taken away from him for their own safety.

When God tells someone to do something, they should do it regardless if they understand why.

If God told you to sacrifice one of your family members, would you do it?

This reminds me of the Stephen Weinberg quote: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Without the Cross, we are doomed. There's nothing we can do otherwise.

We are doomed unless someone is brutally beaten and sacrificed? That makes absolutely no moral sense at all.
We should live our lives in the most positive way we can and try to leave the world a better place than which we found it.

Gloom & Doom preaching drives so many people away from Christianity, I will agree there. That is why I'd rather preach God's Love. If you repent and accept His Son, you needn't worry about the fire&brimstone of Hell.

Preaching love is good and all but do you think it's moral to condemn someone to eternal torture and punishment just for not believing? I've asked this question to several believers and there are always gymnastics done to get around it. If I live my life in the most positive way I can. Love others, treat people with respect, kindness, etc but I don't believe in God, do I DESERVE to burn in hell for all eternity? Yes or no?

It shouldn't hurt anyone if they take but a moment to understand that you're an unfortunate person who has been driven away because of a lack of preaching having to do with Love.

I wasn't driven away because of a lack of preaching having to do with love. That's all I was taught when I was a Christian. I was driven away after reading the bible and finding many reprehensible verses, contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. I even read apologetics and found nothing but special pleading, among many other logical fallacies. I had to be honest with myself and conclude that I found it highly unlikely that any of it was true.

Sin leads to death, and a price must be paid for it. He paid that price, but we have to accept this payment and agree that our sin is grievous and unclean.

I can think of a lot of different ways to forgive sins and none of them involve killing someone. If God exists and the only way to "forgive mans sin" is to have a blood sacrifice, I am not impressed.

 

[Xalith]

Well, that didn't take too long to pop up. The usual Atheist shtick.... please forgive me if my replies will be a bit brief, as I've heard all of this before.

First, there is no evidence that a group of people was wandering the desert. Israeli archaeologists have abandoned trying to find evidence as their work turned up absolutely nothing

Really? Israeli archaeologists went into Saudi Arabia, into an area that's a no-go zone to search for evidence for the Exodus? Do tell when exactly that happened...

So a benevolent God has no other way to forgive sins? It must be a blood sacrifice?

That's the way He deemed it must be. It isn't for us to question.

The blood of rams and goats would not be payment for any type of sin. It's a superstitious ritual.

Superstitious ritual or not, it was what they were told to do. It was symbolic, a foreshadowing of what God would later do.

So now, instead of scapegoating animals, we're going to scapegoat a human being? I'm sorry, but this sounds so sadistic and disturbing. We are responsible for our own actions. Vicarious redemption is immoral.

We didn't scapegoat a human being, He did.

If God is omniscient than he is responsible for "sin" as he knew beforehand what his creation would do. Created sick and then commanded to be well.

He created Adam and Eve without sin. They ate the fruit, sinned, and fell. God told them not to eat it, they ate it.

And if you don't meet these commandments you will be punished with eternal torture. This sounds like a cruel experiment done by a vindictive being

It isn't like the "commandments" are particularly hard, or anything. Let's see, Repent, Accept His Son, Love God, and Love Everybody as Ourselves. You make it sound like He's asking you to walk on hot coals barefoot or something.

This is the definition of scapegoating.

Obviously, because that's where the term scapegoat came from, the Jewish Ritual of sacrificing one goat, and tying a red strand around the other and letting it wander in the wilderness.

If you committed a horrible crime and were sentenced to death would it be moral for you to accept my offer to take your place in the electric chair? I argue that it would be immoral for you to do so. We're responsible for our own actions. If I wrong someone, it is my responsibility to correct that wrong to the best of my ability, accept the consequences and work towards being a better person. There is no vicarious redemption.

If you were the one who defined morality and the law, and offered yourself as a sacrifice for my crime, then yes, it would be moral for me to accept. It would be immoral for me to decline. I'll give another example of this at the end.

Anyone who threatens the life of a child and calls it a "test of faith" deserves no respect or attention.

If the Abraham character was living today and threatened to kill his child with "God was testing me" as their defense, we'd call him a very disturbed and delusional individual. He'd be thrown into a mental institution and his child would be taken away from him for their own safety.

Abraham did not live in our day, and things were a little different back then, so that's kinda a strawman. And Abraham had faith that God would not actually allow him to kill his son. That's why he told Jacob "God will provide the sacrifice". He didn't say "You are the sacrifice", he said "God will provide the sacrifice" when Jacob asked him "where's the sacrifice?"

Abraham knew ahead of time that Jacob was not going to be killed. That's the very definition of faith. God made an unconditional promise to Abraham beforehand that required Jacob to be alive, and he knew that God would never break His promise.

If God told you to sacrifice one of your family members, would you do it

I know that God would not actually want me to kill my family member, just like Abraham knew that God was just testing him.

We are doomed unless someone is brutally beaten and sacrificed? That makes absolutely no moral sense at all.
We should live our lives in the most positive way we can and try to leave the world a better place than which we found it.

We are doomed without someone or something to pay for our sin.

It just so happens to be, that Someone did pay for our sin already -- we just have to accept it and agree that our sin is bad and try our best to not sin anymore.

Preaching love is good and all but do you think it's moral to condemn someone to eternal torture and punishment just for not believing? I've asked this question to several believers and there are always gymnastics done to get around it. If I live my life in the most positive way I can. Love others, treat people with respect, kindness, etc but I don't believe in God, do I DESERVE to burn in hell for all eternity? Yes or no?

Refusing to accept Christ is basically disobeying God. If you don't love Christ, then you don't love God. If you don't love the Son, then you don't love the Father who sent His Son. If you're disobeying God, knowing you're disobeying God, why do you think you should be able to enter Heaven where God reigns, and there is no sin, disobedience, etc?

If you're disobeying... how can you go to the place where there is no disobedience?

I wasn't driven away because of a lack of preaching having to do with love. That's all I was taught when I was a Christian. I was driven away after reading the bible and finding many reprehensible verses, contradictions, inconsistencies, etc. I even read apologetics and found nothing but special pleading, among many other logical fallacies. I had to be honest with myself and conclude that I found it highly unlikely that any of it was true.

You likely misunderstood or failed to grasp many of the symbolic things the Bible teaches. And besides, the quoted block was directed at the other poster, not you.

I can think of a lot of different ways to forgive sins and none of them involve killing someone. If God exists and the only way to "forgive mans sin" is to have a blood sacrifice, I am not impressed.

It takes a special kind of insolence to think that your way is better than God's way, and that you aren't impressed, as if all of this revolved around you and your opinions.

I'm not saying this offensively, but to be honest... the universe does not revolve around you. Sometimes, things exist that you might not agree with, you might not like, but they're there, like it or not. And when it comes to a Being like God... well.

What is Man, compared to the Being who made all things?

Not sure how else to even try to reply to that. Some people have decided to close their minds off to Him entirely. Perhaps once you've passed on, or the Tribulation starts, you might realize that we were right all along. Hopefully the latter happens before the former; if the former happens first, then it is already too late.

EDIT: I just realized I forgot the example. It goes like this:

You get fined $100 for a speeding ticket and you appear before a judge in court, but you're flat broke. The judge sits in his seat and goes "I see you were speeding, what have you to say for yourself?" And you apologize profusely and explain that you're broke.

The Judge goes "I'm sorry, I can't change the law just for you. The penalty is $100 or a month in jail." He then stands up, takes his Judge's Robe off, steps out from the bench, walks over to your table, gets out his wallet, and lays $100 on the table in front of you, walks back over to his bench, puts his Judge's Robe back on, sits back down and says "I see someone has paid the price for you. Do you accept it?"

That's kinda like how the Crucifixion works.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Really? Israeli archaeologists went into Saudi Arabia, into an area that's a no-go zone to search for evidence for the Exodus? Do tell when exactly that happened...

19th century and onward.
"Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide."

"William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

That's the way He deemed it must be. It isn't for us to question.

This is not benevolent behavior though. It's rather sadistic in my opinion.

Superstitious ritual or not, it was what they were told to do. It was symbolic, a foreshadowing of what God would later do.

Practice killing animals in preparation to kill a human. This is typically how a psychopath is born.

We didn't scapegoat a human being, He did.

But we must accept it as a good thing?
Say this out loud to yourself "The only way I can be saved from my mistakes is for someone else to be brutally killed"
Does that sound moral to you? It sounds reprehensible when I say it out loud to myself.

He created Adam and Eve without sin. They ate the fruit, sinned, and fell. God told them not to eat it, they ate it.

Do you believe God is omniscient? If you do, then you must admit he knew what would happen and what he would do afterwards. He is responsible. If he is an omnipotent being, he is fully capable of creating a peaceful, loving world that does not require brutal, bloody sacrifices. It sounds entirely man made.

It isn't like the "commandments" are particularly hard, or anything. Let's see, Repent, Accept His Son, Love God, and Love Everybody as Ourselves. You make it sound like He's asking you to walk on hot coals barefoot or something

But the punishment is pretty severe. Accept my existence and sacrifice without any verifiable and testable evidence or burn in hell for eternity. That is vindictive and capricious.

Obviously, because that's where the term scapegoat came from, the Jewish Ritual of sacrificing one goat, and tying a red strand around the other and letting it wander in the wilderness.

Yep, and it's immoral.

If you were the one who defined morality and the law, and offered yourself as a sacrifice for my crime, then yes, it would be moral for me to accept. It would be immoral for me to decline.

Then you are being offered a psychotic moral attitude. "It's good because he commanded it". How is it reasonable to say that psychological torture on a child is moral because you believe the being commanded it defines morals but you can easily condemn someone else for commanding such a thing? This is an example of perfectly good and moral people accepting morally reprehensible behavior because you think your salvation depends on it.

Abraham did not live in our day, and things were a little different back then, so that's kinda a strawman.

Yep. Superstitious nonsense from illiterate people who had no knowledge of the world they are living in. You recognize that this would be unacceptable behavior in today's society but it's somehow okay because it was a different time? Do you also believe that slavery in America was perfectly okay because it was a different time?

And Abraham had faith that God would not actually allow him to kill his son. That's why he told Jacob "God will provide the sacrifice". He didn't say "You are the sacrifice"

It's Issac. Jacob is Issac's son. Anyway...God specifically tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. Genesis 22:2

Abraham knew ahead of time that Jacob was not going to be killed. That's the very definition of faith. God made an unconditional promise to Abraham beforehand that required Jacob to be alive, and he knew that God would never break His promise.

Yet, Abraham still tied his son up, laid him on the alter and took out his knife. Then of course the angel comes to the rescue with "Just kidding. Just needed to make sure you feared God". This is basically psychological torture of a child. If you were driving down the road and saw on the side of the road a man tying a child to a table and taking his knife out, would you try to stop it even if he told you God told him to do it?

I know that God would not actually want me to kill my family member, just like Abraham knew that God was just testing him.

Would you tie a family member up, lay them on a table and take a knife out?

We are doomed without someone or something to pay for our sin.

Like I said before, vicarious redemption is immoral. Throwing your sins onto someone else and calling it good is, in my opinion, nonsense. I'm responsible for my own actions. If I wrong someone, I must do my best to correct that wrong, accept the consequences and do my best to be a better person.

It just so happens to be, that Someone did pay for our sin already -- we just have to accept it and agree that our sin is bad and try our best to not sin anymore.

I know I am not a perfect person. I think the idea of someone having to be brutally murdered in order to forgive my mistakes is reprehensible.

Refusing to accept Christ is basically disobeying God. If you don't love Christ, then you don't love God.

How can I disobey someone who I do not believe exists? How can I not love someone who I do not believe exists? I would appreciate a yes or no answer instead of the mental gymnastics done to avoid the question. I will ask it again.

If I live my life in the most positive way I can, showing love, kindness and respect to everyone but I do not believe in the existence of God. Do I deserve to burn in hell for all eternity? Yes or no?

You likely misunderstood or failed to grasp many of the symbolic things the Bible teaches. And besides, the quoted block was directed at the other poster, not you.

How do you know what parts to take literal and what parts as symbolic?
What is the lesson to be learned when Deuteronomy explains if I find out my wife isn't a virgin I can take her to her fathers door step and stone her to death? Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Please do not use the "It was a different" time excuse. Is this morally reprehensible or not?

It takes a special kind of insolence to think that your way is better than God's way, and that you aren't impressed, as if all of this revolved around you and your opinions.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that human sacrifice is morally reprehensible.

I'm not saying this offensively, but to be honest... the universe does not revolve around you.

I find this ironic considering the Christian believes in a personal God who created everything, that takes interest in us and loves us. There are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Every one of those galaxies has hundreds of trillions of stars, each with their own planets. We live on a tiny spec of dust orbiting around an uninteresting star in an unimportant galaxy. We aren't that special. We make our own purpose in this short life. I have enjoyed mine and will continue enjoy it until I am gone.

Perhaps once you've passed on, or the Tribulation starts, you might realize that we were right all along.

This is a version of Pascal's Wager. It can be used for anything. Perhaps once you've passed on you'll realize that Islam was right all along. It will be too late then. I'm sure you don't lose any sleep over that possibility. Just like I don't lose any sleep over the Christian version of hell or any other religious faith. I doubt that any of it is true.

Hopefully the latter happens before the former; if the former happens first, then it is already too late.

I'm not intimidated by warnings or threats.

You get fined $100 for a speeding ticket and you appear before a judge in court, but you're flat broke. The judge sits in his seat and goes "I see you were speeding, what have you to say for yourself?" And you apologize profusely and explain that you're broke.

The Judge goes "I'm sorry, I can't change the law just for you. The penalty is $100 or a month in jail." He then stands up, takes his Judge's Robe off, steps out from the bench, walks over to your table, gets out his wallet, and lays $100 on the table in front of you, walks back over to his bench, puts his Judge's Robe back on, sits back down and says "I see someone has paid the price for you. Do you accept it?"

I don't. I can ask for a payment plan or community service. In fact, this actually happened to me once. It wasn't a speeding ticket though. It was a minor consumption ticket when I was 19. I couldn't afford to pay the fine. The judge let me do 10 hours of community service. I was responsible for my actions and accepted the consequences.

That's kinda like how the Crucifixion works.

It's not. Nobody is brutally sacrificed in this scenario. Just as I wouldn't accept someone being condemned to a human sacrifice, I wouldn't allow a judge to pay my fine. I learn nothing from my mistake. I now know that I can speed in my car and if I get caught, no big deal, the judge will pay my fine. So....I should not accept this gesture to pay my fine nor should the judge offer it. It's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide."

Why were they surprised?

What exactly were they expecting to find?

"Joseph slept here" carved on a tree?

And speaking of Joseph, this site shows Joseph and Imhotep to be the same person.

"William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.”

It may come as a surprise to you that Israel is an atheistic nation right now.

But not for much longer.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why were they surprised?

What exactly were they expecting to find?

If there were over 600,000 people wandering the desert, we'd know about it. You'd find artifacts everywhere. Archaeologists find absolutely nothing that suggest the exodus story is true. That's why they don't look anymore. It's a waste of time.

And speaking of Joseph, this site shows Joseph and Imhotep to be the same person.It may come as a surprise to you that Israel is an atheistic nation right now.

It doesn't show anything of the sort. All I see is someone begging the question with nonsensical comparisons. It all looks like pseudo history to me. "All historians and archaeologists are wrong. Here is my book that I haven't had peer reviewed by experts"

It may come as a surprise to you that Israel is an atheistic nation right now.

You know that's wrong, AV. Statistics are going to debunk that claim. 74.9% of their population identify as Jewish.

 

[cloudyday2]

EDIT: The reason why I asked you to be careful, is saying that the crucifixion is "unnecessary" is a rather strong blasphemy, though He'll forgive you if you repent, especially seeing as you don't appear to really understand what it was truly about.

I quoted the last part of your post, because I think it is a good example of another thing that I do not like about Christianity - the unnecessary fear that it creates among Christians. The top example of this is the "unforgiveable sin" that nobody can precisely define, yet countless Christians worry if they have committed it.

 

[Xalith]

I quoted the last part of your post, because I think it is a good example of another thing that I do not like about Christianity - the unnecessary fear that it creates among Christians. The top example of this is the "unforgiveable sin" that nobody can precisely define, yet countless Christians worry if they have committed it.

The Unforgivable Sin, aka, Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is to attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan.

It requires two things:

1). You have to know said works were from the Holy Spirit (by being familiar with how Holy Spirit works),
2). You have to turn your back on Holy Spirit and tell someone else that the same works were done by Satan.

When someone has done this, knowing full well that they are lying, they've just committed Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. In the Bible, Christ tells the Pharisees that they have done this, because he knows as well as we do when we read the Bible, that the Pharisees knew who He is, and how He did the things He did. The Pharisees did not accept Jesus because He was a threat to the institution that they set up. They weren't interested in worshipping God, they wanted all of their pomp and respect. They were exalting themselves, and in the process, trying to diminish God. That's why Jesus calls them "sons of Satan" (pp).

Therefore, the Pharisees committed blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by telling everybody around them that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) cast out demons with the power of Satan in order to defame Jesus (and the Holy Spirit).

Nowadays, committing Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit involves speaking out against ministers and preachers who you know are good people. If you've "tasted" the "fruit" (listened to their sermons) and you know them to be followers of God, and you speak out against them to defame them and turn people away from them, then you are committing Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This is unforgivable, because God is trying to use that person to save souls, and you are actively working against God, doing irreparable damage to their reputation, thus making it impossible for God to use that person to their full extent. This could possibly have grave consequences, eternal consequences for other souls who might have been saved had you not done that (all the "yous" in this paragraph are figurative/hypothetical).

There should not be any fear within Christianity, if you really understand this stuff. But to really understand this stuff, you need to read up on it, hear some sermons about it, from people who aren't preaching Fire&Brimstone, Gloom&Doom (too many people focus on that). Once you get a good understanding, you'll realize you need not fear. The Bible speaks out against Gossip and Tale-bearing, so... if you heed those, then you won't have to worry about Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If you love someone (including a preacher), then you won't bash them or tell people they are heretics.

Now, don't get me wrong -- you're not supposed to accept everything everybody says without discerning their message. Discern the message, but don't judge the person giving the message. No preacher is 100% perfect, everybody is flawed. The Truth lies in-between, and a Christian needs to ask Holy Spirit to help reveal this truth from the breadcrumbs you get from this preacher, that preacher, that preacher over there... every preacher is different, and their messages will vary because they're humans like the rest of us. Some of their messages are truth... some are laced with misunderstanding.

Some are heretics preaching heresy, but again... our job is not to judge the person. If you hear what you think is heresy, then block it out of your mind, and ignore that preacher, and don't listen to them again. Just... don't defame the person, don't argue with the person, and don't tell others to not listen to him.

Does that clear it up?

 

[AV1611VET]

If there were over 600,000 people wandering the desert, we'd know about it.

Don't overestimate science.

Science couldn't tell you what a prenatal drug does to a generation of children.

Where are the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, the ... well ... here's a list ...

Exodus 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

I suppose science is going to say they didn't exist, either?

But if they didn't exist either, what's with laying genocide at God's feet?

The Jews had artifacts made of gold, silver, and ... here it comes, scientists ... brass.

Not bronze, as scientists like to think -- brass.

Brass is copper and zinc.

Ever gone on vacation, come home and find all your copper was removed from the premises?

You'd find artifacts everywhere.

Really?

The Amalekites, elite desert warriors, must have thought they'd died and gone to Heaven when the Jews came out of Egypt bearing gold, silver, and precious metals.

Archaeologists find absolutely nothing that suggest the exodus story is true.

Archaeology is myopic.

That's why they don't look anymore. It's a waste of time.

Ya ... they can't update their equipment and look again with more sophisticated toys?

Okay ... so they hunt around in the desert with their JunkFinder 1.0's and don't find anything.

(This must have looked hilarious from a helicopter's viewpoint.)

So they update their equipment to JunkFinder 2.0, then 3.0, then etc.

Now they have JunkFinder 10.1 -- but they have already given up on the Jews ages ago!?

Science at its best.

ETA, here's some wisdom for you scientists out there: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have to turn your back on Holy Spirit and tell someone else that the same works were done by Satan.

Xalith, none of my business, but are you a Jehovah's Witness?