Why not believe in Christianity?

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

God told Abramham to go forth and be fruitful. Meaning to go out and spread the word of Christ.

This is a prime example of why I'm no longer and never will become a Christian again. Its just amazing how people will twist the text to mean what ever they want it to say.

 

[ChristianM0Mof2]

This is a prime example of why I'm no longer and never will become a Christian again. Its just amazing how people will twist the text to mean what ever they want it to say.

How is this twisted?? God wants us to help others. To teach... not just to go out and have as many childern as we want...

How do you read this context then?

 

[Smith87]

A belief, in the religious context (faith), is not based on experiance (sic) but based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I'd say faith is a big part of religion, but your context on the term "proof" is quite a general one.

Regardless my point still stands with regard to a diety, resurrection, virgin birth and so on.

Given modern scientific reseach, a belief in an omnipotent diety is not at all unreasonable. Such explanations for the big bang, the spontanous generation of life, and the philosophical wonder of "why something rather nothing"; are mysteries which are quite compatable with the omnipotent Christian God.

As for the miricles of Jesus...
I'll say it's ultimatly a matter of faith when all comes down to it. However, given the Gospel accounts, the authors make it clear that Jesus is no ordinary man (as different in other mythological fabels such as Beowulf), but in fact, the son of God. Thus, if Jesus was the Son of God, I see no real surpraises given his claimed capabilites. The historical Jesus leaves us no doubt that his early disciples believed in the miraculous events they have seen.

But again, it comes down to faith. We can't be positive if these miraculous events which dramically changed the hearts of countless lives are true or false. All we can possiably have are witness accounts .

'empirical'

Evolution ?, immortality ?, the soul ?, a diety ?, virgin birth ?, resurrection, a 6000 year old earth ?, miracles ? etc etc etc...

None of these are in contradiction with science ?

We'll it would be more practial to just discuss one specfic matter at a time than dealing with a check list.

I dont see how evolution directly contradict with the scriptures.

Does science say that we go into an eternal void or have eternal life? It say neither, because such wonders as the afterlife can certainly not be measured or studied.

Science is simply the study of observation. It certainly does not declare the existance or nonexistance of God.

The whole book of Genesis is a vision of Moses, and the "days" of creation just represents the order of which God created time/space/existance,ect.

I understand that you trust the teachings and warnings of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to be true, but you still have not said why you trust these more than any other religion ?

Obviously I can't rebut every single non-Christian belief, but after reasearching several other religions, worldviews, and alternate philosophies (not to mention, attending classes taught by Dr. William Lane Craig), and lastly, through personal experiance; I see Christianity as the most reasonable theological belief system.

 

[BibleMadeMeDoIt]

How is this twisted?? God wants us to help others. To teach... not just to go out and have as many childern as we want...

How do you read this context then?

Lets see could it have something to do with the fact Abraham had NOTHING to do with Jesus when he was told be be fruitful. If you read anywhere in the O.T. dealing with being "fruitful" in relationship to people, is specifically talking about one issue and that is about having children and enlarging the tribe. Go to biblegateway.com and type in the word and read the scriptures that come up.

 

[ChristianM0Mof2]

Lets see could it have something to do with the fact Abraham had NOTHING to do with Jesus when he was told be be fruitful. If you read anywhere in the O.T. dealing with being "fruitful" in relationship to people, is specifically talking about one issue and that is about having children and enlarging the tribe. Go to biblegateway.com and type in the word and read the scriptures that come up.

okay ~ I have my teaching and you have yours..But, thier is only one GOD...

But, as Christian's we are here to spread the Good News.. and that is said with love and compassion..

I am sorry you have had bad experiences before..

And, yes.. Abramham had everything to do with Christ.. He was in His bloodline.. ~~ since Abrambam is related to Jacob..~ which is the father to the 12 tribes..which Jesus came from...

I hope for you the best... God Bless

oh I just found this online..

"All authority has been given to me," corresponds to "I am God Almighty." And "Go therefore and make disciples," corresponds to "Be fruitful and multiply." In other words, the people of God are an evangelizing, persuading, recruiting, missionary people because God is God Almighty and Jesus is the absolute authority in the universe.

 

[Edx]

Alright, I see your point. But that didn't really address the question.

I think he is trying to say that he wants to know what is true, not just believe in something because he wants it to be true.

 

[Edx]

'empirical'

Evolution ?, immortality ?, the soul ?, a diety ?, virgin birth ?, resurrection, a 6000 year old earth ?, miracles ? etc etc etc...

None of these are in contradiction with science ?

Im confused as to why you put evolution in that list

 

[Telephone]

I'd say faith is a big part of religion, but your context on the term "proof" is quite a general one.

Faith is essential to religion, faith negates reason. If one were to believe in a diety through reasonable thought, logic or even evidence, there would be little need for faith.

Given modern scientific reseach, a belief in an omnipotent diety is not at all unreasonable. Such explanations for the big bang, the spontanous generation of life, and the philosophical wonder of "why something rather nothing"; are mysteries which are quite compatable with the omnipotent Christian God.

I am sure all these things are equally compatible with all omnipotent gods from all religions, they are also compatible with any or all omnipotent creatures I can dream up in my imagination in the next half an hour or so.

Your point is that if the Christian god exists and if he is omnipotent then he would be capable of these things, as would be anything you could ascribe omnipotence to, but this does not equate to a compatibility with scientific research.

The idea that modern science finds the idea of an omnipotent diety reasonable is nonsense..

As for the miricles of Jesus...
I'll say it's ultimatly a matter of faith when all comes down to it.

What miracles ? These miracles are not in front of you, they are not on the news or on display in a temple in Rome or Paris for you to observe, they are not recorded on film or video, they are ink in a translation of some stories written when men believed the earth was flat. You have been taught these as true, you have been convinced, you have been indoctrinated, and you will teach your children these miracles as fact, you will indoctrinate them with your beliefs, and they will teach their children the bible as the inerrant word of god and so on and so on, everyone at every stage in this chain is wanting to believe in an after life and being convinced that believing without evidence (faith) is a virture.

However, given the Gospel accounts, the authors make it clear that Jesus is no ordinary man (as different in other mythological fabels such as Beowulf), but in fact, the son of God. Thus, if Jesus was the Son of God, I see no real surpraises given his claimed capabilites. The historical Jesus leaves us no doubt that his early disciples believed in the miraculous events they have seen.

This is a big leap from a story to an absolute truth.

But again, it comes down to faith. We can't be positive if these miraculous events which dramically changed the hearts of countless lives are true or false. All we can possiably have are witness accounts .

And these witnesses accounts may also not be true, and not only might the witnesses stories not be true but the witnesses may never have existed.

We'll it would be more practial to just discuss one specfic matter at a time than dealing with a check list.

Indeed.

Does science say that we go into an eternal void or have eternal life? It say neither, because such wonders as the afterlife can certainly not be measured or studied.

Of course the 'afterlife' can not be studied, nor can the magical powers of karma or reincarnation or rebirth or resurrection or such wonders as the magical kingom of peace and joy you live in during the eternity before you are born, because they are simply man made notions with no footing in reality.

Science is simply the study of observation. It certainly does not declare the existance or nonexistance of God.

Science to me goes something like this:

In a room full of people, we hear a loud banging noise coming from somewhere outside, some people in the room claim the noise they hear is the souls of the dead trying to enter the room, some claim these noises are their gods angry at them for drinking wine, and some claim that these noises are demons looking for people to tempt into 'sin' and eventually 'hell' , in this room of people whos views are held with the utmost authority (and they all have their holy books to 'prove' they are 100% right) these people argue and fight over who is right about the noise and why the other peolples views are not only wrong but 'evil'. in this room 'science' is the little fellow in the corner who decides to simply go over and open the door and have a look to see where the noise is coming from, if it is any of the things these people claim it is, he will report this back as observed evidence, if none of these things were observed he will also say so (much to the dismay and denial of those with vested interests in certain beliefs)

The whole book of Genesis is a vision of Moses, and the "days" of creation just represents the order of which God created time/space/existance,ect.

This is an interpretation of a fable with no evidence to make it in any way credible.

Obviously I can't rebut every single non-Christian belief, but after reasearching several other religions, worldviews, and alternate philosophies (not to mention, attending classes taught by Dr. William Lane Craig), and lastly, through personal experiance; I see Christianity as the most reasonable theological belief system.

No 'faith' is reasonable, if it were reasonable it would negate faith, if it were reasonable there would be very few atheists, if it were reasonable people would come to it naturally and there would be no reason for our children to be indoctrinated from a very young age.

 

[Telephone]

Im confused as to why you put evolution in that list

Whoops, my mistake!



Meant to put creationism!

 

[Edx]

Whoops, my mistake!



Meant to put creationism!

Ok Cos otherwise even I didnt understand your point.

 

[Telephone]

Ok Cos otherwise even I didnt understand your point.

 

[Samsara]

I am curious to what causes doubt among unbelievers. Thanks for the input!

Namaste Smith!

Before I offer in my views, I would like to say I have no doubt and that I am a believer. I believe in Christianity. To deny it's existence would be to deny the grass beneath my feet. I guess I could do it but it would be futile as they both exist.

With this out of the way I would like to state that I am a Gnostic - in that I follow Jesus. I am a Christian in the sense that were Jesus standing beside me today, he would say I am his follower.

The people today who call themselves Christian, like Jesus was denied, would deny me. Therefore, I would counter your question with this: "What causes doubt among the 'believers?'

Pease, Love, and Light,
Samsara

 

[Smith87]

Faith is essential to religion, faith negates reason. If one were to believe in a diety through reasonable thought, logic or even evidence, there would be little need for faith.

I don't see how "faith" and "reason" contradict. Many highly intellectual theists believe faith through reasonable thought, logic, and even evidence. Science has not (nor can it) anwser such questions of morality, teleology, and human purpose. I'll be more than happy to throw away my religious beliefs when science tells me that loving my parents instead of killing them is the morally "right" thing to do.

I am sure all these things are equally compatible with all omnipotent gods from all religions, they are also compatible with any or all omnipotent creatures I can dream up in my imagination in the next half an hour or so.

Not all religions have an ominpotent God (hence, not are all equally reasonable). I fail to see how, logically, that due to increasing number of religions, the one true religion, decreases in truth.

Your point is that if the Christian god exists and if he is omnipotent then he would be capable of these things, as would be anything you could ascribe omnipotence to, but this does not equate to a compatibility with scientific research.

The idea that modern science finds the idea of an omnipotent diety reasonable is nonsense.

Actually, because of scientific research, an omnipotent entity is not only found reasonable, but a vital factor to coherently acknowledge the origin of all physical matter, energy, and time. Atheists would like to say that the universe has always been, but such circular philosophies have been disproven by modern science.

What miracles ? These miracles are not in front of you, they are not on the news or on display in a temple in Rome or Paris for you to observe, they are not recorded on film or video, they are ink in a translation of some stories written when men believed the earth was flat.

Apparantly that is what you want believe. I don't believe the post philisophical age of Aristotle or Plato were primitive nor ignorant. The author of the Gospels reported an event that they witnessed within their lifetime. If you actually researched the historical Jesus, you will soon find the irrationality found in elaborate mythical scenarios.

You have been taught these as true, you have been convinced, you have been indoctrinated, and you will teach your children these miracles as fact, you will indoctrinate them with your beliefs, and they will teach their children the bible as the inerrant word of god and so on and so on, everyone at every stage in this chain is wanting to believe in an after life and being convinced that believing without evidence (faith) is a virture.

You have been taught that atheism is true, you have been convinced, you are embittered at religion, you will teach your children that miracles can never ever exist as a fact, you will burden them with your pesstimistic beliefs, and you will teach your children that the bible is a load of bull, fatally harmful to intellect, so on and so forth. Everyone at every stage in this chain is wanting to bash the bible, preceive life as pointless, and believe in something without evidence (atheism) as an "intellectual obligation".

Again, presumptions and sterotypes will always be a part of both ends. I don't see any light at the end of tunnel for this discussion.

This is a big leap from a story to an absolute truth.


And these witnesses accounts may also not be true, and not only might the witnesses stories not be true but the witnesses may never have existed.

It either absolutly happendend, or didn't

Of course the 'afterlife' can not be studied, nor can the magical powers of karma or reincarnation or rebirth or resurrection or such wonders as the magical kingom of peace and joy you live in during the eternity before you are born, because they are simply man made notions with no footing in reality.

That's a non sequitar. The afterlife does necessiarly ential any mythical locations. If you claimed that an eternal void was entered when you died, you couldn't prove that as much as if you claimed an eternal kingdom.

If you you did any research in apologetics and decided to read the otherside of the story; you could look up such theological paradigms such as moral consequence. Which basically entials that if there is no afterlife, moral character is quite insigificant and without a point.

Science to me goes something like this:

In a room full of people, we hear a loud banging noise coming from somewhere outside, some people in the room claim the noise they hear is the souls of the dead trying to enter the room, some claim these noises are their gods angry at them for drinking wine, and some claim that these noises are demons looking for people to tempt into 'sin' and eventually 'hell' , in this room of people whos views are held with the utmost authority (and they all have their holy books to 'prove' they are 100% right) these people argue and fight over who is right about the noise and why the other peolples views are not only wrong but 'evil'. in this room 'science' is the little fellow in the corner who decides to simply go over and open the door and have a look to see where the noise is coming from, if it is any of the things these people claim it is, he will report this back as observed evidence, if none of these things were observed he will also say so (much to the dismay and denial of those with vested interests in certain beliefs)

Seeing that you hold strongly to these beliefs; I'm assuming you would logically aknowledge something caused the first big bang.

This is an interpretation of a fable with no evidence to make it in any way credible.

You're begging the question. Can you prove his vision to be a fable, or do you assume it?

No 'faith' is reasonable, if it were reasonable it would negate faith, if it were reasonable there would be very few atheists, if it were reasonable people would come to it naturally and there would be no reason for our children to be indoctrinated from a very young age.

First of all, you obviously haven't done any research in apologetics or theology, but apparantly you've only been exposed to the giant strawman that is atheism. If you really don't want to believe in religion, alas, you won't.

If you believe this, than believe that there would be no "natural" reason why children wouldn't fight to death over a toy car.
As Sigmund Freud said, without the supression of the ego and superego, there would be nothing stopping the self gratifing id. Again, do some research before you draw sterotypical conclusions.

I'm afraid this discussion is not going anywhere. If you would like to discuss a more specific issue that we can actually get some ground on; that would be great. Otherwise, we must agree to disagree on the vast majority on this issues.

 

[Fares]

Knowing is good and safe !
Faith is excellent but dangerous !

When a religion explotes faith it becomes a dangerous weapon ! Terrorists for example !

One that knows right from wrong can see the mistake and not correct it !
A one that has faith, will die trying to correct the mistake !

Faith is much stronger then knowing !

I dont know if God exist, but I can feel him !
Some Power created this univers, someone created emotions, rigth and wrong .

I heard that God exist but faith was not there, I was a good human been, did not hurt people, or steal or miss treat my parents ! I know if I countinued that way, that I would go to heaven ! But something was missing in my life ! You feel empty like a part of your body is missing !
So once I was walking near a church and I looked at the church's door and I felt like I needed to go in , like if someone was pushing me !
I stood at the entrance watching the cross, I swear that at that same moment I knew that Christianity is the path to God !

You think that God will let those who have been good only because they wanted to get in heaven go to heaven ? You will go to heaven because you beleive in doing the right thing !

 

[JGL53]

...Seeing that you hold strongly to these beliefs; I'm assuming you would logically aknowledge something caused the first big bang...

If a god caused the big bang, then what caused god?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists would like to say that the universe has always been, but such circular philosophies have been disproven by modern science.

Science has done no such thing. This is a speculative conclusion one could draw from some scientific ideas, but it's not something actually proven by science.

 

[Smith87]

If a god caused the big bang, then what caused god?

He's the first uncaused cause.

 

[Smith87]

Science has done no such thing. This is a speculative conclusion one could draw from some scientific ideas, but it's not something actually proven by science.

Afraid not, the myth of an infinite universe (which was popular among early greek philosophers such as plato) is indeed rejected by science. We are now sure that universe does have a point of origin prior to expansion. Atheists who attempt to remain reasonable, do speculate that there has been previous universes (such as Branes theory).

 

[quatona]

I am curious to what causes doubt among unbelievers. Thanks for the input

It´s a bit more than a doubt. BibleGod seems absurd to me, His existence doesn´t make any sense, plus He is so very obviously anthropomorph. I have no questions that the existence of BibleGod would answer. Not that I consider these valid arguments against BibleGod´s existence, but that´s basically why I personally see no reason to believe in it any more than in the existence of other mythological characters.

 

[quatona]

He's the first uncaused cause.

Is this a mere assertion or a conclusion?